Corporations
Sarah Parker and Sol Parker, Respondents, v. Morris Rosenberg and Rosenberg Cornice and Roofing Corporation, Appellants
229 A.D. 726·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1930·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Sarah Parker and Sol Parker, Respondents, v. Morris Rosenberg and Rosenberg Cornice and Roofing Corporation, Appellants.
[MAJORITY]
Order reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The record does not, in our opinion, show any good reason why a receiver should be appointed under the agreement involved in this action. The assets are quite small and there is no pretense that the defendant corporation is insolvent and a receivership would simply add an unnecessary expense to this litigation. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.