Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Annie Baumann et al., Respondents, for Dissolution of Willat Studios & Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation. Adam Kessel, Jr., et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1922-10-24
Citations: 234 N.Y. 555
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Annie Baumann et al., Respondents, for Dissolution of Willat Studios & Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation. Adam Kessel, Jr., et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 234
Pages: 555–555

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of Annie Baumann et al., Respondents, for Dissolution of Willat Studios & Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation. Adam Kessel, Jr., et al., Appellants.
Corporations — dissolution — court upon vacating so much of order to show cause as appointed referee may upon appointing new referee direct him to proceed without further publication or service of the order to show cause.
Matter of Baumann, 201 App. Div. 136, affirmed.
(Submitted October 5, 1922;
decided October 24, 1922.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 16, 1922, which affirmed an order of Special Term vacating so much of a prior order to show cause why a corporation should not be dissolved as appointed a referee, appointing a new referee and directing him to proceed under the original order without republication or reservice of the order.
The following question was certified: “ When an order to show cause, returnable before a referee, has been made under section 178 of the General Corporation Law, and such order has been published and served, pursuant to sections 179 and 180 of the General Corporation Law, has the Supreme Court power, upon vacating so much of the order to show cause as appointed the referee and upon appointing a new referee, to direct the new referee to proceed without new or further publication and service of the order to show cause or of the order appointing the new referee, as if the new referee had been originally designated in such order to show cause? ”
John L. Lockwood for appellants.
Henry Brill and Arthur S. Friend for respondents.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.