Abelow v. Diamond, 54 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976). · Go Syfert
Abelow v. Diamond, 54 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Ruhle (nyappdiv, 2019-06-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ruhle
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Contrary to respondent's assertion, the May 2017 order is not reviewable in the context of his appeal from the January 2018 order because the May 2017 order does not necessarily affect the January 2018 order ( see Matter of County of Nassau v State of New York , 100 AD3d 1052 , 1056 [2012], lv dismissed 20 NY3d 1092 [2013]; Hirschfield v Hirschfield , 54 AD2d 656, 656 [1976]; Dulber v Dulber , 37 AD2d 566 , 566 [1971], affd 29 NY2d 408 [1974]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Irving Abelow
v.
Howard Diamond
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 26, 1976.
54 A.D.2d 656
Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1976, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondents. Pursuant to section 619 of the Business Corporation Law, an election of corporate officers has been challenged. There are issues of fact as to the relationship of the parties and their status or lack thereof as corporate directors or officers. These issues must be resolved before the issues of law tendered may be considered. The statute empowers the Special Term to take several courses in respect of such an application, one being to "hear the proofs and allegations of the parties” and another, alternatively, to "take such other action as justice may require.” Special Term has ordered a hearing to ascertain the facts. This is appropriate in the circumstances. Concur&emdash;Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.