Legal Opinion

Hollender v. Rochester Food Products Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 14, 1926PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

This action has been brought to dissolve a corporation for the reason that it has suspended its ■ ordinary and lawful business for at least one year. Pursuant to sections 101 and 102 of the General Corporations Law this Idnd of an action can only be brought by a stockholder after the Attorney-General of the State has failed to bring it, and leave has been granted to the stockholder by the court. Without deciding whether or not the plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action by reason of his failure to comply with this procedure, we pass to a consideration of the main or substantial point…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Looker v. MaynardSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Union Hotel Company v. . HerseeNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  3. N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co. v. . WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  4. People Ex Rel. Cayuga Power Corp. v. Public Service CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1919

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Clarke v. American Press Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Crohn v. Firemen's Benevolent Fund Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Alpren v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API