Loft Management Co. v. Gavish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loft Management Co. v. Gavish

202 A.D.2d 328, 609 N.Y.S.2d 10

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 328 (Loft Management Co. v. Gavish) 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

Loft Management Co. v. Gavish, 202 A.D.2d 328, 609 N.Y.S.2d 10 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Resettled order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about February 8, 1993, which, inter alia, ordered a sale of the undivided one-half interest of respondent-appellant Jacob Gavish in respondent Barak Development Associates, a dissolved partnership, and directed that the purchaser be assigned appellant’s "[rjights and [ijnterest in the [partnership”, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The resettled order cured any infringement of appellant’s partnership rights during winding up under Partnership Law § 51 (2) (c) by directing the sale of appellant’s undivided one-half interest in the partnership rather than the sale of the property itself. This accords with Partnership Law § 54 (1), which allows an individual creditor to attach the interest of a partner in a partnership (see, Jones v Palermo, 105 Misc 2d 405). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

Resettled order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about February 8, 1993, which, inter alia, ordered a sale of the undivided one-half interest of respondent-appellant Jacob Gavish in respondent Barak Development Associates, a dissolved partnership, and directed that the purchaser be assigned appellant’s "[rjights and [ijnterest in the [partnership”, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The resettled order cured any infringement of appellant’s partnership rights during winding up under Partnership Law § 51 (2) (c) by directing the sale of appellant’s undivided one-half interest in the partnership rather than the sale of the property itself. This accords with Partnership Law § 54 (1), which allows an individual creditor to attach the interest of a partner in a partnership (see, Jones v Palermo, 105 Misc 2d 405). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 328, 609 N.Y.S.2d 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loft-management-co-v-gavish-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack