Legal Opinion
Rosengardt v. Muhlfelder Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 28, 1958PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert D. Hamm, J.
This is a motion for an order to strike from the defendant’s answer the first, second and fourth affirmative defenses and for summary judgment.
The first defense is insufficient. The intramural action of the directors did not constitute a contract between the corporation and the plaintiff modifying the agreement of February 10, 1934, between the corporation and the plaintiff.
The second defense is one of waiver and estoppel and, at least as to waiver, it is not insufficient in law,
*143The fourth defense is a further defense of waiver arising from an alleged unanimous agreement among the directors,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Devlin v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Alsens American Portland Cement Works v. Degnon Contracting Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Barrett v. JacobsNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Nicholas Di Menna & Sons, Inc. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Davison v. KlaessNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Concord Real Estate Cdo 2006-1, Ltd. v. Bank of America N.A.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2010
- Lopez v. New Mexico Board of Medical ExaminersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1988
- Lopez v. New Mexico Board of Medical ExaminersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1988