Miller v. Glant Swedish Metal Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1979 |
| Citation | 420 N.Y.S.2d 900,72 A.D.2d 520 |
| Parties | Allen G. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLANT SWEDISH METAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
D. J. Brooks, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
R. K. Keesing, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before BIRNS, J. P., and FEIN, BLOOM, LUPIANO and YESAWICH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 7, 1978, granting the motion of defendants Glant, Zacharias and Glants Jarn And Metallafar, AB to confirm the report of the Special Referee and to dismiss the complaint for lack of In personam jurisdiction and denying plaintiff's cross-motion to disqualify defendant Ralph Keesing from acting as counsel for his co-defendants, reversed, on the law, the motion by said defendants to confirm the Referee's report and to dismiss the complaint is denied and the cross-motion by plaintiff to disqualify defendant Keesing from acting as counsel for the co-defendants is granted, without costs and disbursements.
In 1974, plaintiff entered into an employment agreement with defendant Glant Swedish Metal Corporation, a New York corporation. Defendant Keesing, a New York resident, is Secretary of that corporation, while non-resident defendants Glant and Zacharias are President and Vice-President, respectively. At the termination of that agreement, it is alleged that plaintiff continued in the corporate employ on an "at will" basis, being induced to do so on promises of greater profit-sharing. Plaintiff complains that despite representations and contractual commitments, he never received any profit-sharing for 1975 and 1976 and that, in effect, a fraud was practiced upon him. As the alleged culmination of this fraud, it is stated that the defendants conspired to cause transfer from the New York corporation to the individual defendants and the defendant foreign corporation of cash funds, thereby depleting the New York corporation and depriving plaintiff of his share of the profits. This was purportedly accomplished by defendant Keesing in mailing blank checks drawn on the New York corporation's account to Sweden at the direction of Glants and Zacharias. This eventuated in the Swedish corporation and the individual defendants obtaining funds without consideration.
In personam jurisdiction was obtained over the non-resident defendants under CPLR 302 in that: (1) the employment agreement was originally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller
...while acting in his capacity as a corporate officer or employee may be held personally liable. See, e. g., Miller v. Glant Swedish Metal Corp., 72 A.D.2d 520, 420 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1979); LaLumia v. Schwartz, 23 A.D.2d 668, 257 N.Y.S.2d 348 (1965); Lutz Feed Co. v. Audet & Co., 72 Misc.2d 28, 3......
-
Oppenheim v. Azriliant
...also left and became a partner in Oppenheim and Macnow. Plaintiff Oppenheim is entitled to represent himself (Miller v. Glant Swedish Metal Corp., 72 A.D.2d 520, 420 N.Y.S.2d 900; cf. Gasoline Expwy, Inc. v. Sun Oil Co., 64 A.D.2d 647, 407 N.Y.S.2d 64, aff'd, 47 N.Y.2d 847, 418 N.Y.S.2d 585......