Amabile v. Lerner

Citation74 N.J.Super. 443,181 A.2d 520
Decision Date25 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. A--215,A--215
PartiesAnthony AMABILE, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry LERNER et al., Defendants-Respondents. . Appellate Division
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Joseph Maran, Jr., Jersey City, argued the cause for appellant.

Everett M. Scherer, Newark, argued the cause for respondents (Riker, Danzig, Marsh & Scherer, Newark, attorneys for defendants other than Lincoln Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.; O'Mara, Schumann, Davis & Lynch, Jersey City, attorneys for respondent Lincoln Mutual Casualty Ins. Co.; Everett M. Scherer, Newark, on the brief).

Before Judges PRICE, SULLIVAN and LEWIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PRICE, S.J.A.D.

Plaintiff seeks to reverse a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants (R.R. 4:58) on their motion in an action in the Superior Court, Chancery Division (Amabile v. Lerner, 64 N.J.Super. 507, 166 A.2d 603 (Ch.Div.1960)). Plaintiff, asserting his ownership of a policy of automobile insurance purchased from the Lincoln Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (Lincoln Casualty) on September 7, 1960, instituted suit on September 15, 1960, as an allegedly derivative action 'for himself and for all other policyholders of the Lincoln Mutual Casualty Insurance Company similarly situated.'

As amended, the complaint, containing 19 counts, charged that the individual defendants, officers and directors of Lincoln Casualty (organized pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:17--1 et seq.), conspired to form the other defendant corporations, Lenox Finance Co., Inc. (Lenox), the Lincoln Co. (Lincoln), and the Safe Drivers Club, Inc. (Drivers), of which they are officers, directors and sole stockholders; and that thereafter in their dealings with those corporations the individual defendants fraudulently diverted assets of Lincoln Casualty to the other corporate defendants for their personal benefit and to the detriment of the policyholders of Lincoln Casualty. Plaintiff demanded that Lincoln, Lenox, Drivers and the individual defendants account for the assets allegedly so diverted and return them to Lincoln Casualty. He also sought the removal of the individual defendants as officers and directors of the latter company and the appointment of a receiver therefor. Separate claims for damages were asserted against the individual defendants.

A detailed analysis of the complaint and a statement of the alleged bases for the relief sought by plaintiff is contained in the aforesaid opinion (64 N.J.Super., at pp. 508--510, 166 A.2d 603).

In support of the motion for summary judgment defendants submitted affidavits and plaintiff's deposition, while plaintiff relied on his verified complaint as amended. The court, determining that no genuine issue as to any material fact existed, adjudged that the defendants were 'entitled to the entry of a summary judgment of involuntary dismissal as a matter of law.' (Amabile, 64 N.J.Super. at pp. 514--515, 166 A.2d at p. 607).

We note that the trial court held that as plaintiff became a policyholder after the 'time of the alleged transactions of which he complains' (1957--1959, inclusive), he was without right to maintain the allegedly derivative action (Amabile, at pp. 512--514, 166 A.2d at p. 607).

We have reached the conclusion that the defendants were entitled to prevail on their motion for summary judgment. However, we prefer to rest our decision solely on the ground that plaintiff failed to produce any facts which could withstand defendants' motion.

We observe in passing (as also noted by the trial court) that plaintiff in his deposition admitted he purchased the policy of insurance in order to commence this very litigation. He stated that one of his purposes in instituting the suit was to advance himself politically. On argument of the appeal his counsel also admitted that such was one of his client's objectives.

An examination of the record convinces us (as it also did the trial court) that the alleged wrongful acts with which the defendants are charged by plaintiff are, as far as disclosed by the instant suit, 'based on beliefs, assumptions, conclusions and suspicions, but not upon factual evidence.' Amabile, at p. 514, 166 A.2d at p. 607. Plaintiff's deposition demonstrates that he has no personal knowledge of any facts which prove a breach of fiduciary duty or an unlawful diversion of corporate assets. He seeks to overcome that deficiency by asserting that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Valle v. North Jersey Auto. Club
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 24 Agosto 1973
    ...N.J. 59, 110 A.2d 19 (1954).3 Cf. Amabile v. Lerner, 64 N.J.Super. 507, 166 A.2d 603 (Ch.Div.1960), aff'd on other grds. 74 N.J.Super. 443, 181 A.2d 520 (App.Div.1962), applying the General Corporation Act standing to sue provision (N.J.S.A. 14A:3--6), as well as the court rule, to a deriva......
  • O'Donnell v. Sardegna, 138
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1993
    ...140 Neb. 354, 299 N.W. 537 (1941); Amabile v. Lerner, 64 N.J.Super. 507, 166 A.2d 603 (N.J.Super.Ct.Ch.Div.1960), aff'd, 74 N.J.Super. 443, 181 A.2d 520 (1962). Cf. Clifford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 264 A.D. 168, 34 N.Y.S.2d 693 (1942) (standing Mutual insurers in Maryland are governe......
  • New Market Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Fellows, A--18
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 6 Mayo 1968
    ...Com., 80 N.J.Super. 372, 193 A.2d 857 (App. Div.1963), certification denied 41 N.J. 198, 195 A.2d 467 (1963); Ambile v. Lerner, 74 N.J.Super. 443, 181 A.2d 520 (App.Div.1962). The facts as elicited from those sources are as On March 21, 1952, Ida Pack retained John C. Fellows to furnish her......
  • Lippmann v. Hydro-Space Technology, Inc., HYDRO-SPACE
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 26 Diciembre 1962
    ...recent cases of Community Development Co., Inc. v. Seaside Gardens, Inc., 7 N.J. 153, 157, 81 A.2d 14 (1951); Amabile v. Lerner, 74 N.J.Super. 443, 446, 181 A.2d 520 (App.Div.1962), affirming 64 N.J.Super. 507, 166 A.2d 603 Despite the general conclusions of the complaint, the affidavits of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT