Cohen v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Cohen

87 A.D.3d 521, 927 N.Y.2d 794

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

DecidedAugust 2, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 521 (Cohen v. Cohen) 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

Cohen v. Cohen, 87 A.D.3d 521, 927 N.Y.2d 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the unilateral amendment to the agreement governing the Stanley and Lorraine Cohen Family Limited Partnership, submitted by the appellant in support of his motion for leave to renew, was unauthorized under section 13 of the same agreement, which provides that amendments to the agreement that would change partners’ rights and interests in partnership profits or losses may only be made with unanimous consent of the partners. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in adhering to its original determination granting the plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (see S.J.J.K. Tennis, Inc. v Confer Bethpage, LLC, 81 AD3d 629 [2011]). Skelos, J.E, Belen, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30838(U).]

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the unilateral amendment to the agreement governing the Stanley and Lorraine Cohen Family Limited Partnership, submitted by the appellant in support of his motion for leave to renew, was unauthorized under section 13 of the same agreement, which provides that amendments to the agreement that would change partners’ rights and interests in partnership profits or losses may only be made with unanimous consent of the partners. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in adhering to its original determination granting the plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (see S.J.J.K. Tennis, Inc. v Confer Bethpage, LLC, 81 AD3d 629 [2011]). Skelos, J.E, Belen, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30838(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 521, 927 N.Y.2d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-cohen-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack