Jablin v. Koren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jablin v. Koren

23 A.D.2d 841, 259 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4120

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

DecidedMay 20, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 841 (Jablin v. Koren) 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

Jablin v. Koren, 23 A.D.2d 841, 259 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $50 costs to defendants, and, provided that defendants shall serve an amended answer as hereinafter indicated, an interlocutory judgment is directed to be entered denying plaintiff’s demands for reformation and an injunction and directing the parties to account, before a court-employed Special Referee to be appointed by Special Term to hoar and report, for all of their transactions as partners of Harold Koren & Co. to the extent that the same have not already been accounted for and accounts settled. The affidavit of defendant Harold Koren sworn to July 30, 1964 concedes that a full accounting is in order. The present answer, however, would limit the accounting to the year 1963 and should therefore be amended. Plaintiff makes no case for reformation of the partnership agreement or injunctive relief. Settle order on notice. Concur — • Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order and judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $50 costs to defendants, and, provided that defendants shall serve an amended answer as hereinafter indicated, an interlocutory judgment is directed to be entered denying plaintiff’s demands for reformation and an injunction and directing the parties to account, before a court-employed Special Referee to be appointed by Special Term to hoar and report, for all of their transactions as partners of Harold Koren & Co. to the extent that the same have not already been accounted for and accounts settled. The affidavit of defendant Harold Koren sworn to July 30, 1964 concedes that a full accounting is in order. The present answer, however, would limit the accounting to the year 1963 and should therefore be amended. Plaintiff makes no case for reformation of the partnership agreement or injunctive relief. Settle order on notice. Concur — • Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 841, 259 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jablin-v-koren-nyappdiv-1965.