You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Robert D. O'Connell, P. C. v. Schlegel Corp.

Citations: 209 A.D.2d 1003; 619 N.Y.S.2d 989; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12028

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 15, 1994; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The order has been unanimously modified and affirmed, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court correctly addressed the issues regarding the title to the disputed shares of stock, and the first two ordering paragraphs of the appealed order remain intact based on the rationale provided in the Supreme Court's decision by Justice Stander. However, the third ordering paragraph has been vacated, and the first counterclaim from the intervenor-defendant has been dismissed. The court found that the intervenor-defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of money allegedly advanced to the plaintiffs. The case was reviewed by Justices Green, Pine, Lawton, Callahan, and Doerr.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Counterclaims

Application: The court dismissed the first counterclaim by the intervenor-defendant due to insufficient evidence.

Reasoning: The court found that the intervenor-defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of money allegedly advanced to the plaintiffs.

Modification and Affirmation of Judicial Orders

Application: The appellate court has modified and affirmed the lower court's order, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

Reasoning: The order has been unanimously modified and affirmed, with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Title Dispute Resolution

Application: The Supreme Court's decision regarding the title to the disputed shares of stock was upheld.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court correctly addressed the issues regarding the title to the disputed shares of stock, and the first two ordering paragraphs of the appealed order remain intact based on the rationale provided in the Supreme Court's decision by Justice Stander.

Vacating of Ordering Paragraphs

Application: The third ordering paragraph of the appealed order has been vacated by the appellate court.

Reasoning: However, the third ordering paragraph has been vacated, and the first counterclaim from the intervenor-defendant has been dismissed.