Ace Tackless Corp. v. Fuhrman
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBenjamin Brenner, J.
The two defendants comprise two thirds of the board of directors of the plaintiff close corporation and control 60% of its stock. They move pursuant to rule 107 of the Buies of Civil Practice to dismiss the first cause of action upon the ground that Ace Taokless Corporation is named as a party plaintiff without the consent of that corporation.
The action is for a declaratory judgment defining the executive powers and functions of the corporation’s president and for an injunction. The cause under attack was instituted by the president in the name of the corporation. An alternative second cause,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sterling Industries, Inc. v. Ball Bearing Pen Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Gentilala v. Fay Taxicabs, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Gentilala v. Fay Taxicabs, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Gordon v. Irving Bank-Columbia Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Siegel v. EngelmannNew York Supreme Court · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Covino v. Alside Aluminum Supply Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
- Ono v. ItoyamaDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1995
- British Brokers, Ltd. v. WolfordNew York Supreme Court · 1961