Duell v. Hancock

83 A.D.2d 762, 443 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15083
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 9, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 83 A.D.2d 762 (Duell v. Hancock) 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
Duell v. Hancock, 83 A.D.2d 762, 443 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The June, 1980 partnership agreement, providing that new partners would be admitted to the firm on the recommendation of an executive committee subject to the approval of two thirds of the subscribing partners, alters the rights of the partners regarding the admission of new partners under either plaintiff’s position, that consent of all the partners is required, or defendants’ position, that a management committee determines the admission of new pártners with the participation of partners limited to advisory opinions. Accordingly, the decision for summary judgment, declaring the partnership agreement not binding on the firm because it was consented to by less than all of the partners was correct (Partnership Law, § 40, subd 8), although it may be binding upon individual partners of the firm who signed it. The fact that plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment before issue had been joined does not require [763]*763reversal; defendants submitted their answer prior to the granting of the motion which, along with their opposing affidavits and oral argument on the motion, allowed all triable issues of fact to be raised (see Kronish, Lieb, Shainswit, Weiner & Hellman v John J. Reynolds, Inc., 33 AD2d 366). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court, Bailio, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present — Cardamone, J.P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

Premiere Eglise Baptiste Haitienne De Manhattan v. Joseph
57 A.D.3d 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Bailey v. Fish & Neave
30 A.D.3d 48 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Borgeest v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker
283 A.D.2d 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Rine v. Higgins
244 A.D.2d 963 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Afco Credit Corp. v. Mohr
156 A.D.2d 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Fineberg v. Fineberg
136 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Curtin v. Glazier
94 A.D.2d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Wojna v. Merchants Insurance
119 Misc. 2d 734 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Miller v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance
92 A.D.2d 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 A.D.2d 762, 443 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duell-v-hancock-nyappdiv-1981.