Legal Opinion
Ascher Corp. v. Horvath
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 26, 1962PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthew M. Levy, J.
The defendant moves, pursuant to subdivision 2 of rule 107 of the Buies of Civil Practice, for an order dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff does not have capacity to sue, in that it is a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in this State, is doing business in this State, and brings the action on a promissory note executed and delivered in this State.
The point has not been raised, and I shall not pass upon the question whether subdivision 2 of rule 107 is or is not available for the assertion of alleged incapacity under sections 210 and 218 of the General…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Wood Selick v. . BallNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Ward v. . PetrieNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Mahar v. . Harrington Park Villa SitesNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Herzog v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Sorin v. Shahmoon Industries, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1961
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Moorhouse v. Ambassador InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
- Dixie Dinettes, Inc. v. Schaller's Furniture Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1972
- Dari-Delite, Inc. v. Priest & Baker, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1966
- Interline Furniture, Inc. v. Hodor Industries Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Ford Laboratories, Inc. v. SharpeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.