Henry v. Bevilacque

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henry v. Bevilacque

272 A.D.2d 769

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

DecidedApril 7, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 769 (Henry v. Bevilacque) 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

Henry v. Bevilacque, 272 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a partnership accounting, order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While affirming the holding that a triable issue exists, we state nevertheless that it has been correctly contended that the mere existence of a partnership, or even entire ownership of the business by the plaintiff’s intestate, would not make out a cause of action if the business was conducted in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. We affirm the order to afford plaintiff an opportunity to establish, if he can, that decedent had enforcible rights in a business not affected by the liquor license in the name of another person. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Carswell and Nolan, JJ., concur in the result.

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

In an action for a partnership accounting, order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While affirming the holding that a triable issue exists, we state nevertheless that it has been correctly contended that the mere existence of a partnership, or even entire ownership of the business by the plaintiff’s intestate, would not make out a cause of action if the business was conducted in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. We affirm the order to afford plaintiff an opportunity to establish, if he can, that decedent had enforcible rights in a business not affected by the liquor license in the name of another person. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Carswell and Nolan, JJ., concur in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-bevilacque-nyappdiv-1947.