Legal Opinion
Pollack v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 7, 1943PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Per curiam
Irrespective of the conclusory allegations set forth, the first cause of action is one for waste of corporate assets. Though the second cause of action is framed in fraud, in essence it likewise is an action for waste of corporate assets. (Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 N. Y. 259, 264; Cohen v. City Company of New York, 283 N. Y. 112, 117.) As to each *120of the two causes of action, the Statute of Limitations to recover damages for injury to corporate property applies.
The Statute begins to run from the date of the commission of each separate'wrongful act alleged in each cause of action…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Cohen v. City Company of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Goldstein v. Tri-Continental Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1939
3Cited by22 opinions
- Moviecolor Limited v. Eastman Kodak Company, Technicolor, Inc. And Technicolor Motion Picture CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Powers Mercantile Corp. v. FeinbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Austrian v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
- Lowell Wiper Supply Co. v. Helen Shop, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Varga v. Credit-SuisseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.