Levy v. Baumeister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. Baumeister

247 A.D.2d 246, 668 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 246 (Levy v. Baumeister) 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

Levy v. Baumeister, 247 A.D.2d 246, 668 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered December 13, 1996, awarding defendants $44,985.47 and $14,950.49, respectively, without prejudgment interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ claim to a share of earnings from cases in which the remaining partners were retained after defendants retired is contrary to section 15 of the parties’ partnership agreement, which limits a retiring partner’s share in the remaining partners’ net earnings to “a share of the value of the partnership’s uncollected receivables inherent in matters pending at his Retirement Date”. The refusal to award prejudgment interest was a proper exercise of discretion (CPLR 5001 [a]).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered December 13, 1996, awarding defendants $44,985.47 and $14,950.49, respectively, without prejudgment interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ claim to a share of earnings from cases in which the remaining partners were retained after defendants retired is contrary to section 15 of the parties’ partnership agreement, which limits a retiring partner’s share in the remaining partners’ net earnings to “a share of the value of the partnership’s uncollected receivables inherent in matters pending at his Retirement Date”. The refusal to award prejudgment interest was a proper exercise of discretion (CPLR 5001 [a]).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 246, 668 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-baumeister-nyappdiv-1998.