Elia v. Naum Damianopulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elia v. Naum Damianopulos

23 A.D.2d 803, 258 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553

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

DecidedApril 1, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 803 (Elia v. Naum Damianopulos) 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

Elia v. Naum Damianopulos, 23 A.D.2d 803, 258 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, order and judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We find that it was error to include in the order the provision which prohibits plaintiff from competing with the defendants in the baking business within Onondaga County for a term of five years. There is nothing in the partnership agreement which limits the activities of withdrawing partners and the Referee’s appraisal of plaintiff’s interest was based in part upon the absence of a noncompetitive clause. We conclude that there was no authority for the inclusion of such a restriction in the order. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Special Term for plaintiff in an action for an accounting; also appeal from order confirming the report of the Referee.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with memorandum and, as modified, order and judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We find that it was error to include in the order the provision which prohibits plaintiff from competing with the defendants in the baking business within Onondaga County for a term of five years. There is nothing in the partnership agreement which limits the activities of withdrawing partners and the Referee’s appraisal of plaintiff’s interest was based in part upon the absence of a noncompetitive clause. We conclude that there was no authority for the inclusion of such a restriction in the order. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Special Term for plaintiff in an action for an accounting; also appeal from order confirming the report of the Referee.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 803, 258 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elia-v-naum-damianopulos-nyappdiv-1965.