Grutman v. Katz

202 A.D.2d 293, 608 N.Y.S.2d 663
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 293 (Grutman v. Katz) 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
Grutman v. Katz, 202 A.D.2d 293, 608 N.Y.S.2d 663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about September 20, 1993, which granted renewal and reargument and, determining the prior motion de novo, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied defendant’s motion for an order striking plaintiffs’ note of issue, and granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion for a protective order, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent that plaintiffs are granted partial summary judgment as to liability on the first cause of action and the matter remanded for a trial on the issue of damages, and except as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Grutman and defendant, having agreed to form a law partnership, signed a lease for certain office space. The partnership was not formed, and defendant moved out. Plaintiffs have brought this action for damages under the lease [294]*294agreement. One who signs an agreement on behalf of a nonexistent principal may himself be held liable on that agreement (Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer, 146 AD2d 666, 667; Imero Florentino Assocs. v Green, 85 AD2d 419, 420-421). The customary indices of partnership are not prerequisites for liability. On a search of the record it is determined that plaintiffs are entitled to damages consequent on defendant’s breach of his obligation as a signator to the lease, which damages plaintiffs have mitigated by subletting. Plaintiffs may prove the quantum of their damages on remand. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

In re Cooper
592 B.R. 469 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)
Geron v. Amritraj
82 A.D.3d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Spring Valley Improvements v. Abajian
40 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Quebecor World (USA), Inc. v. Harsha Associates, L.L.C.
455 F. Supp. 2d 236 (W.D. New York, 2006)
San Sung Korean Methodist Church v. Professional USA Construction Corp.
14 A.D.3d 501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
San Sung Korean Methodist Church v. Professional USA Constr. Corp.
2004 NY Slip Op 50740(U) (New York Supreme Court, Queens County, 2004)
Fonda Group, Inc. v. Lewison
162 F. Supp. 2d 292 (D. Vermont, 2001)
Powell v. Jaysons Construction & Interiors, Inc.
185 Misc. 2d 794 (Nassau County District Court, 2000)
Marks v. Macchiarola
204 A.D.2d 221 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 A.D.2d 293, 608 N.Y.S.2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grutman-v-katz-nyappdiv-1994.