From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cisney v. Creighton Manor Realty Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1923
206 App. Div. 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)

Opinion

June, 1923.

Present — Kelly, P.J., Rich, Jaycox, Kelby and Young, JJ.


Judgment and order reversed on the law, and complaint unanimously dismissed, with costs. It is clear that it was required that plaintiff's offer to purchase to be effective should be accepted by the defendant; this he failed to prove, the record disclosing that the meeting of April 6, 1920, was not attended by all the directors, and was not held after notice to each director as required by the by-laws. The action taken at the meeting was, therefore, ineffectual to bind the defendant. ( Gerard v. Empire Square Realty Co., 195 App. Div. 244.)


Summaries of

Cisney v. Creighton Manor Realty Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1923
206 App. Div. 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)
Case details for

Cisney v. Creighton Manor Realty Company

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED J. CISNEY, Respondent, v. CREIGHTON MANOR REALTY COMPANY, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1923

Citations

206 App. Div. 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)

Citing Cases

Machne Menachem, Inc. v. Mendel Hershkop

That is hardly this case as the findings above plainly reveal. Cf. Amity Holding Corp. v. Eden, 238 A.D. 628…

Machne Menachem, Inc. v. Hershkop

In those circumstances, the Court wrote "where the directors own all the capital stock of the corporations,…