From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richman v. Felmus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 28, 1959
8 A.D.2d 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Summary

In Richman, the plaintiffs' stock was not worth $50,000 either on the date of the alleged wrong, on the date of the commencement of the action, on the date of the making of the motion for security, or on the date of the decision of the motion.

Summary of this case from Roach v. Franchises International, Inc.

Opinion

July 28, 1959


In a stockholder's derivative action pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County (Action No. 1), the appeal is from an order denying appellants' motion to remove Action No. 2 from the Supreme Court, New York County, to the Supreme Court, Kings County, and to consolidate it with Action No. 1, and for other relief. The motion was denied without prejudice to renewal after the determination by this court of an appeal from an order in Action No. 1 entered January 6, 1959. Appeal dismissed, without costs. We find no reason, in this record, for deviation from the general rule that no appeal lies from an order denying a motion without prejudice to renewal ( Blair v. Holzberg, 4 A.D.2d 674). Nolan, P.J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Richman v. Felmus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 28, 1959
8 A.D.2d 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

In Richman, the plaintiffs' stock was not worth $50,000 either on the date of the alleged wrong, on the date of the commencement of the action, on the date of the making of the motion for security, or on the date of the decision of the motion.

Summary of this case from Roach v. Franchises International, Inc.
Case details for

Richman v. Felmus

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS RICHMAN, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LAURENCE B. FELMUS et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 28, 1959

Citations

8 A.D.2d 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Citing Cases

Sorin v. Shahmoon Industries, Inc.

First, at what date is the market value to be ascertained? The defendants rely most strongly upon Richman v.…

Haberman v. Tobin

The New York cases are in conflict as to whether the acquisition of stock after the action is commenced meets…