Steinberg v. Carey
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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
- Kalmanash v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Gerdes v. ReynoldsNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Weinberger v. QuinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Weinberger v. QuinnNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
3Cited by9 opinions
- Greenbaum v. American Metal, Climax, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967
- Chaft v. KassAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
- Gilbert v. CaseNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Schwartz v. RosenthalNew York Supreme Court · 1958
- 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.