From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Austin v. Gardiner

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Feb 19, 1947
188 Misc. 538 (N.Y. Misc. 1947)

Opinion

February 19, 1947.

Bandler, Brady Haas and Samuel Gottlieb for plaintiff.

John A. Wilson and George C. Seward for William T. Gardiner and others, defendants.

McLaughlin Stickles for Pacific Coast Cement Corporation, defendant.

Webster Garside for Richard P. Windisch, defendant.


This motion to dismiss the complaint is disposed of as follows: (1) Section 61 of the General Corporation Law requires that in a derivative stockholder's action "it must be made to appear that the plaintiff was a stockholder at the time of the transaction of which he complains * * *." A proper compliance with the provisions of this section requires an allegation in the complaint setting forth the date, exact or approximate, when it is claimed that the plaintiff became a stockholder. It will then become apparent from the face of the complaint itself whether and to what extent the plaintiff has the capacity to sue.

(2) In Myer v. Myer ( 271 A.D. 465, 475) the court ruled that "all allegations contained in the complaint referring to activities occurring prior to * * * the date when plaintiffs acquired" their stock, "should be dismissed as to all moving defendants." This did not mean, however, that in the case of what are claimed to be continuing wrongs, and which so appeared to be alleged in the complaint, plaintiff would be precluded from setting forth the facts with respect to the inception of the alleged wrongs, although they occurred prior to the date he acquired his stock. Apart from the application of the Statute of Limitations, the plaintiff's recovery under Myer v. Myer ( supra) would be limited to the period from the time he acquired his stock, but he could nevertheless set forth relevant facts by way of inducement or historical background tending to show the existence of continuing wrongs and, in so doing, could go back to a period before the stock was acquired by him. Otherwise, it might be impossible to recover for any continuing wrong.

The motion to dismiss the complaint is accordingly granted with leave to serve an amended pleading in accordance with the foregoing determination within twenty days after service of a copy of the order to be settled hereon with notice of entry. Settle order.


Summaries of

Austin v. Gardiner

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Feb 19, 1947
188 Misc. 538 (N.Y. Misc. 1947)
Case details for

Austin v. Gardiner

Case Details

Full title:CLEM C. AUSTIN, Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Stockholders of…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Feb 19, 1947

Citations

188 Misc. 538 (N.Y. Misc. 1947)
68 N.Y.S.2d 664

Citing Cases

York Props. v. Neidoff

Plaintiff, however, claims a continuing wrong on the part of defendants. Although, in its present form, the…

Sorin v. Sharmoon

On the papers submitted it appears prima facie that plaintiffs acquired equitable ownership of shares in the…