Legal Opinion

Taylor v. African Methodist Episcopal Church

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

Decided November 2, 1942PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This action is representative and not derivative. It may be maintained under section 195 of the Civil Practice Act. (Tyndall v. Pinelawn Cemetery, 198 N. Y. 217, 220; Leighton v. New York Railways Co., 169 App. Div. 553, 555; Kovarsky v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 279 N. Y. 304, 314.) The complaint, which is the only document properly considered upon a motion testing its sufficiency, states a cause of action for an accounting in equity. The practice of embodying argument on the facts and law in an affidavit, including the citation of authorities, is improper and is disapproved. Hagarty,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kovarsky v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
  2. Tyndall v. . Pinelawn CemeteryNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  3. Leighton v. New York Railways Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Deutsch v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Hogan v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Ammirati v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Supreme Court · 1983
  4. People v. MirasolaNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1962
  5. In re the Estate of AlbinNew York Surrogate's Court · 1962

9 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