Legal Opinion

Steinberg v. Carey

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

Decided May 17, 1955PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

In a stockholder’s derivative suit like the present, wherein a corporate defendant and its officers and directors might be subject to lengthy and expensive examinations before trial, and the corporation assessed for payment of litigation expenses under article 6-A of the General Corporation Law, the courts require plaintiffs suing derivatively to set forth something more than vague general charges of wrongdoing (Gerdes v. Reynolds, 281 N. Y. 180; Kalmanash v. Smith, 291 N. Y. 142; Weinberger v. Quinn, 264 App. Div. 405, affd. 290 N. Y. 635). The charges must be supported by factual assertions…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kalmanash v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  2. Gerdes v. ReynoldsNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  3. Weinberger v. QuinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
  4. Weinberger v. QuinnNew York Court of Appeals · 1943

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Greenbaum v. American Metal, Climax, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967
  2. Chaft v. KassAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
  3. Gilbert v. CaseNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Schwartz v. RosenthalNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Garfield v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959

4 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