From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Langer v. Garay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 1968
30 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Summary

In Langer v Garay (30 A.D.2d 942) the Appellate Division, First Department, Per Curiam, held without discussion: "The appearance by the corporate defendant should be by independent counsel whose interests will not conflict with those of the individual defendants."

Summary of this case from Schwartz v. Guterman

Opinion

October 3, 1968


Appeal by defendants from order entered May 20, 1968, insofar as such order denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7), dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The service of an amended complaint pursuant to the direction of the court renders such appeal academic ( Miglietta v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 22 A.D.2d 874). Order, entered May 20, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to delete the fifth decretal paragraph thereof denying plaintiff's cross motion to strike the appearance of defendants' counsel as attorney for corporate defendant, and the plaintiff's said cross motion is granted and the appearance of counsel in behalf of the corporate defendant is stricken, with leave, in the exercise of discretion, to the said corporation to appear, answer and otherwise defend by independent counsel, if it is so advised, within 20 days from the entry of the order; the sixth decretal paragraph of said order is unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to fix the undertaking to be executed, acknowledged and filed by the receiver, in the sum of $75,000; and order otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. The appearance by the corporate defendant should be by independent counsel whose interests will not conflict with those of the individual defendants. (See Garlen v. Green Mansions, 9 A.D.2d 760.) Under the circumstances, it was a proper exercise of discretion to appoint a Receiver in this stockholder's derivative action brought in the interests of the defendant corporation, a real estate holding corporation (see E.H.A. Successor Corp. v. Vogel, 21 A.D.2d 176), but in view of the assets and rents receivable by the corporation, a $75,000 receiver's bond should be adequate security.

Concur — Eager, J.P., Steuer, Tilzer, Rabin and Macken, JJ.


Summaries of

Langer v. Garay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 1968
30 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

In Langer v Garay (30 A.D.2d 942) the Appellate Division, First Department, Per Curiam, held without discussion: "The appearance by the corporate defendant should be by independent counsel whose interests will not conflict with those of the individual defendants."

Summary of this case from Schwartz v. Guterman
Case details for

Langer v. Garay

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN LANGER, on Behalf of Himself as a Shareholder of Yorkville…

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

Date published: Oct 3, 1968

Citations

30 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Citing Cases

Schwartz v. Guterman

If the request is timely made and there is a potential conflict, independent representation has been…

Schwartz v. Guterman

Based upon the allegations I believe the potential for serious conflict between the partnership and the sole…