Frankel v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frankel v. Hirsch

38 A.D.3d 712, 830 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 712 (Frankel v. Hirsch) 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

Frankel v. Hirsch, 38 A.D.3d 712, 830 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant has been dissolved, and for an accounting, the defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.H.O.), entered October 13, 2005, which, after an inquest on the issue of damages, declared that the partnership was dissolved as of September 6, 1995, and is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $1,393,239.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s determinations as to the date of dissolution of the parties’ partnership, the lawsuits which belonged to the partnership, and the amount of the parties’ share of partnership fees are supported by the record, and by its evaluation of the credibility of the parties at the inquest following the striking of the defendant’s answer by this Court (see Frankel v Hirsch, 2 AD3d 399 [2003]; Partnership Law §§ 60, 62 [1] [b]; Briscoe v White, 34 AD3d 712, 713 [2006]; Morris v Crawford, 304 AD2d 1018, 1020 [2003]; Grant v Heit, 242 AD2d 247, 248 [1997]). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb them.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant has been dissolved, and for an accounting, the defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.H.O.), entered October 13, 2005, which, after an inquest on the issue of damages, declared that the partnership was dissolved as of September 6, 1995, and is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $1,393,239.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s determinations as to the date of dissolution of the parties’ partnership, the lawsuits which belonged to the partnership, and the amount of the parties’ share of partnership fees are supported by the record, and by its evaluation of the credibility of the parties at the inquest following the striking of the defendant’s answer by this Court (see Frankel v Hirsch, 2 AD3d 399 [2003]; Partnership Law §§ 60, 62 [1] [b]; Briscoe v White, 34 AD3d 712, 713 [2006]; Morris v Crawford, 304 AD2d 1018, 1020 [2003]; Grant v Heit, 242 AD2d 247, 248 [1997]). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb them.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 712, 830 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankel-v-hirsch-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack