Nave v. Dunbar Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nave v. Dunbar Partners

255 A.D.2d 159, 679 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11881

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 159 (Nave v. Dunbar Partners) 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

Nave v. Dunbar Partners, 255 A.D.2d 159, 679 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered November 25, 1997, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $57,043.93, inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The weight of the evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the expenses for which plaintiff seeks indemnification under the parties’ partnership agreement were incurred in good faith and without gross negligence in furtherance of the partnership’s business interests, and that plaintiff is accordingly entitled to judgment therefor. Defendants’ remaining arguments are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or lack merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered November 25, 1997, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $57,043.93, inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The weight of the evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the expenses for which plaintiff seeks indemnification under the parties’ partnership agreement were incurred in good faith and without gross negligence in furtherance of the partnership’s business interests, and that plaintiff is accordingly entitled to judgment therefor. Defendants’ remaining arguments are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or lack merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 159, 679 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nave-v-dunbar-partners-nyappdiv-1998.