CadleRock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Klar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CadleRock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Klar

278 A.D.2d 39, 717 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12687

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 39 (CadleRock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Klar) 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

CadleRock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Klar, 278 A.D.2d 39, 717 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered July 10, 2000, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a deficiency judgment entered against him on default, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s claim that plaintiff is a foreign limited partnership doing business in New York without authority, and is therefore maintaining this action in violation of Partnership Law § 121-907 (a), is unsupported by any evidence of systematic and regular activity (see, Alicanto, S.A. v Woolverton, 129 [40]*40AD2d 601, 602; cf., Partnership Law § 121-902 [b]). Nor does defendant offer any persuasive evidence on valuation. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered July 10, 2000, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a deficiency judgment entered against him on default, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s claim that plaintiff is a foreign limited partnership doing business in New York without authority, and is therefore maintaining this action in violation of Partnership Law § 121-907 (a), is unsupported by any evidence of systematic and regular activity (see, Alicanto, S.A. v Woolverton, 129 [40]*40AD2d 601, 602; cf., Partnership Law § 121-902 [b]). Nor does defendant offer any persuasive evidence on valuation. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 39, 717 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadlerock-joint-venture-lp-v-klar-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack