Frame v. Maynard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frame v. Maynard

39 A.D.3d 328, 833 N.Y.S.2d 487

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

DecidedApril 17, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 328 (Frame v. Maynard) 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

Frame v. Maynard, 39 A.D.3d 328, 833 N.Y.S.2d 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered April 17, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the Guthrie defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their cross claims against defendant Maynard and the partnership of which he was general partner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied on the Guthries’ cross claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the limited partnership agreement and constructive fraud since there is a question of fact as to the value of the limited partners’ share of the property, and whether or not it was worth more than the limited partners received from the sale. Rescission of the sale is not a proper remedy since money damages will adequately compensate the Guthries. Removal of Maynard as the general partner is likewise not a proper remedy since dissolution of the [329]*329partnership renders his removal moot. Concur—Andfias, J.E, Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered April 17, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the Guthrie defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their cross claims against defendant Maynard and the partnership of which he was general partner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied on the Guthries’ cross claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the limited partnership agreement and constructive fraud since there is a question of fact as to the value of the limited partners’ share of the property, and whether or not it was worth more than the limited partners received from the sale. Rescission of the sale is not a proper remedy since money damages will adequately compensate the Guthries. Removal of Maynard as the general partner is likewise not a proper remedy since dissolution of the [329]*329partnership renders his removal moot. Concur—Andfias, J.E, Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 328, 833 N.Y.S.2d 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frame-v-maynard-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack