Goldstein v. Sokel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Sokel

194 A.D.2d 518, 598 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5441

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

DecidedJune 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 518 (Goldstein v. Sokel) 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

Goldstein v. Sokel, 194 A.D.2d 518, 598 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting upon the dissolution of a partnership, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated March 15, 1991, which, upon confirming a Referee’s report, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $7,096.05.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant contends that the Referee, appointed by the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 4212, exceeded his authority in finding that the plaintiff did not violate a restrictive covenant in the parties’ partnership agreement by sending to its clients a letter informing them of the impending dissolution. We disagree.

A Referee’s authority is derived from the order of reference (see, CPLR 4311; Lipton v Lipton, 128 Misc 2d 528, 531, affd 119 AD2d 809; see also, Feder Corp. v Bozkurtian, 48 AD2d 701). While the Supreme Court’s order of reference, dated December 20, 1988, limited the scope of the Referee’s authority to rendering an "accounting of the assets of the partnership of the parties”, it was necessary for the Referee to address the issue of whether the aforementioned letter amounted to a breach of the parties’ restrictive covenant in order to render a full accounting of the partnership profits due and owing to the plaintiff (cf., Feder Corp. v Bozkurtian, supra). In any event, on the merits, the defendant’s contention that the letter violated the restrictive covenant must be rejected.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be devoid of merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting upon the dissolution of a partnership, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated March 15, 1991, which, upon confirming a Referee’s report, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $7,096.05.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant contends that the Referee, appointed by the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 4212, exceeded his authority in finding that the plaintiff did not violate a restrictive covenant in the parties’ partnership agreement by sending to its clients a letter informing them of the impending dissolution. We disagree.

A Referee’s authority is derived from the order of reference (see, CPLR 4311; Lipton v Lipton, 128 Misc 2d 528, 531, affd 119 AD2d 809; see also, Feder Corp. v Bozkurtian, 48 AD2d 701). While the Supreme Court’s order of reference, dated December 20, 1988, limited the scope of the Referee’s authority to rendering an "accounting of the assets of the partnership of the parties”, it was necessary for the Referee to address the issue of whether the aforementioned letter amounted to a breach of the parties’ restrictive covenant in order to render a full accounting of the partnership profits due and owing to the plaintiff (cf., Feder Corp. v Bozkurtian, supra). In any event, on the merits, the defendant’s contention that the letter violated the restrictive covenant must be rejected.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be devoid of merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 518, 598 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-sokel-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack