Burstein v. Central Hudson Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burstein v. Central Hudson Associates

244 A.D.2d 174, 665 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11056

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 174 (Burstein v. Central Hudson Associates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burstein v. Central Hudson Associates, 244 A.D.2d 174, 665 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 14, 1997, which granted respondent partnership’s motion to dismiss petitioner estate’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to, inter alia, compel respondent to provide access to its books and records, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that petitioner estate is not a limited partner in respondent partnership with all of the rights attendant to that status under Partnership Law § 99. To accept petitioner’s contention to the contrary would be to ignore Partnership Law § 108 (4) and (5) setting forth the steps that must be taken for an assignee to become a substituted limited partner, and Partnership Law § 110 (1) restricting the limited partner rights given to the estate of a deceased limited-partner to those necessary to the settling of the estate (cf., United Natl. Ins. Co. v Waterfront N. Y. Realty Corp., 907 F Supp 663). We [175]*175agree with the IAS Court that petitioner’s executor failed to establish that he needs access to respondent’s books and records in order to settle the estate. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 14, 1997, which granted respondent partnership’s motion to dismiss petitioner estate’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to, inter alia, compel respondent to provide access to its books and records, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly held that petitioner estate is not a limited partner in respondent partnership with all of the rights attendant to that status under Partnership Law § 99. To accept petitioner’s contention to the contrary would be to ignore Partnership Law § 108 (4) and (5) setting forth the steps that must be taken for an assignee to become a substituted limited partner, and Partnership Law § 110 (1) restricting the limited partner rights given to the estate of a deceased limited-partner to those necessary to the settling of the estate (cf., United Natl. Ins. Co. v Waterfront N. Y. Realty Corp., 907 F Supp 663). We [175]*175agree with the IAS Court that petitioner’s executor failed to establish that he needs access to respondent’s books and records in order to settle the estate. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 174, 665 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burstein-v-central-hudson-associates-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack