Opinion · Nylaw New York
MATTER OF FINE SOUND, INC., 5 A.D.2d 973 [1st Dept 1958]
In the Matter of Dissolution of FINE SOUND, INC. ARTHUR M. LOEW et al.,Appellants; SAMPSON R. FIELD, Respondent., 5 A.D.2d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1958)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1958-04-01
- Topic
- general
MATTER OF FINE SOUND, INC., 5 A.D.2d 973 [1st Dept 1958] In the Matter of the Dissolution of FINE SOUND, INC. ARTHUR M. LOEW et al.,Appellants; SAMPSON R. FIELD, Respondent.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. April 1, 1958 Despite the consent of all parties and persons having any interest in a voluntary proceeding for the dissolution of a corporation under the provisions of the General Corporation Law, Special Term denied an application for a discontinuance and referred the question to a Referee.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF FINE SOUND, INC., 5 A.D.2d 973 [1st Dept 1958]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
MATTER OF FINE SOUND, INC.,5 A.D.2d 973[1st Dept 1958]
In the Matter of the Dissolution of FINE SOUND, INC. ARTHUR M. LOEW et al.,
Appellants; SAMPSON R. FIELD, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Despite the consent of all parties and persons having any interest in a voluntary proceeding for the dissolution of a corporation under the provisions of the General Corporation Law, Special Term denied an application for a discontinuance and referred the question to a Referee. There is no apparent justification for the refusal to accede to the clearly expressed wishes of all interested parties, including all known creditors, the Attorney-General of the State of New York, the stockholders and directors of the corporation, and even the temporary receiver (who is nominally the respondent on this appeal). Under the circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a discontinuance. In view of our conclusion as to the discontinuance, the order authorizing the receiver to employ counsel and referring the question of whether he should retain expert engineering and appraisal services to the Referee must also fall. The order is reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion and the motion for a discontinuance is granted, without costs. The order [as to appointment of counsel] is reversed on the law and in the exercise ofPage 974discretion, without costs, and the motion denied as moot in view of the discontinuance directed.
Concur — Breitel, J.P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.