Legal Opinion
Harris v. Lederfine
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 20, 1949PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDi Falco, J.
The defendant, Joseph Lederfine, has moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, pursuant to rule 113 of the Buies of Civil Practice.
*411The complaint contains two causes of action. The first cause of action is brought under section 71 of the Stock Corporation Law. The second cause of action proceeds under section 15 of the Stock Corporation Law.
The following facts are undisputed: the plaintiff (a nephew of the defendant, Joseph Lederfine), together with the defendant, Joseph Lederfine and two other defendants organized the Jolie Musical Instrument Corp. on or about June 9,1947. On June…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bristor v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Farnum v. HarrisonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Farnum v. . HarrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lindsey v. WinklerNassau County District Court · 1967
- Herman v. LevanneNassau County District Court · 1974
- Stull v. Bellefonte Stone Products Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Harris v. McLaughlin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County1951