Gold v. Ingber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gold v. Ingber

307 A.D.2d 609, 762 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8308

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

DecidedJuly 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 609 (Gold v. Ingber) 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

Gold v. Ingber, 307 A.D.2d 609, 762 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered July 11, 2002 in Sullivan County, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims.

In this action to collect defendants’ share of sums due pursuant to the terms of a note and mortgage, defendants plead counterclaims which relate to the affairs of a partnership in which plaintiff Raymond Gold, defendants and others were partners in the ownership of an unrelated parcel of land. We affirm Supreme Court’s dismissal of the counterclaims because they fall within the prohibition against partners suing each other for matters relating to the affairs of the partnership prior to an accounting of the partnership business (see Wynne v Gruber, 237 AD2d 284, 284 [1997]; 1056 Sherman Ave. Assoc. v Guyco Constr. Corp., 261 AD2d 519, 520 [1999]; Mannaberg v Herbst, 45 NYS2d 197, 201 [1943], affd 267 App Div 818 [1944], affd 293 NY 657 [1944]). Defendants do not dispute that no accounting has occurred. Moreover, these counterclaims can only be fully and finally resolved if all of the partners are parties to the lawsuit (see CPLR 1001).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered July 11, 2002 in Sullivan County, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims.

In this action to collect defendants’ share of sums due pursuant to the terms of a note and mortgage, defendants plead counterclaims which relate to the affairs of a partnership in which plaintiff Raymond Gold, defendants and others were partners in the ownership of an unrelated parcel of land. We affirm Supreme Court’s dismissal of the counterclaims because they fall within the prohibition against partners suing each other for matters relating to the affairs of the partnership prior to an accounting of the partnership business (see Wynne v Gruber, 237 AD2d 284, 284 [1997]; 1056 Sherman Ave. Assoc. v Guyco Constr. Corp., 261 AD2d 519, 520 [1999]; Mannaberg v Herbst, 45 NYS2d 197, 201 [1943], affd 267 App Div 818 [1944], affd 293 NY 657 [1944]). Defendants do not dispute that no accounting has occurred. Moreover, these counterclaims can only be fully and finally resolved if all of the partners are parties to the lawsuit (see CPLR 1001).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 609, 762 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gold-v-ingber-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack