Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tarlow v. Archbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 27, 1945PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1DissentDore, J.

No essential allegation not shown to be sham survives defendants’ motion addressed to the first cause of action. *838(Zwerdling v. Bent, 264 App. Div. 195, affd. 291 N. Y. 654.) The undisputed documentary evidence, the affidavits and concessions of plaintiffs’ accountant show that the bonus computations, audited by independent accountants, were based on the net profits as recorded in the company’s own books of account, reported to the stockholders and stated in accordance with accepted principles of accounting. Where there is a mere difference of opinion as to the application of accepted methods…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kalmanash v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  2. Zwerdling v. BentNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  3. Zwerdling ex rel. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. BentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
  4. Hoyt v. Great American InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Merrick v. New York Subways Advertising Co.New York Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Ackert v. AusmanNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Lewis v. DickerNew York Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Gresov v. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1961

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API