Jamie v. Jamie

8 A.D.3d 88, 777 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7961
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jamie v. Jamie. Read the opinion of the Court — 19 A.D.3d 330

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered on or about September 24, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dissolving the partnership, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs met none of the statutory prerequisites for judicial dissolution (Partnership Law § 63). A court may dissolve a partnership that is no longer viable, but other remedies may also exist short of liquidation where acts of wrongdoing have allegedly been perpetrated by the moving partner himself (see Drucker v Mige Assoc. II, 225 AD2d 427 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 807 [1996]). It is premature to conclude that the instant dispute has made continuation of the partnership impossible. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Jamie v. Jamie, 8 A.D.3d 88, 777 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

8 A.D.3d 88 (Jamie v. Jamie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Drucker v. Mige Associates II
225 A.D.2d 427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)