Weinstock v. Goldwater

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstock v. Goldwater

88 A.D.2d 911, 450 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17243

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 1, 1982·Published

Opinion

— In a shareholder’s derivative action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that a corporate policy of defendant Archie Enterprises, Inc., is “null and void”, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated May 8, 1981, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted defendants-respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis of prematurity. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We find under the circumstances of this case that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as being premature. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In a shareholder’s derivative action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that a corporate policy of defendant Archie Enterprises, Inc., is “null and void”, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated May 8, 1981, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted defendants-respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis of prematurity. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. We find under the circumstances of this case that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as being premature. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Weinstock v. Goldwater, 88 A.D.2d 911, 450 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

88 A.D.2d 911 (Weinstock v. Goldwater) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.