Palmentola v. Morrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmentola v. Morrell

21 A.D.2d 828, 251 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3457

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

DecidedJune 24, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 828 (Palmentola v. Morrell) 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

Palmentola v. Morrell, 21 A.D.2d 828, 251 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to establish a partnership and to recover damages for breach of an alleged partnership agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 13, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion and which appointed a temporary receiver of the property, assets, rights and obligations of said partnership. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; and plaintiff’s motion for a temporary receiver denied. Special Term found that the business would not be jeopardized if a receiver were not appointed. In view of such finding, with which we agree, there was no justification for the appointment of a receiver. The issue as to whether there was in fact a partnership must await determination on the basis of all the proof to be adduced upon a plenary trial. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to establish a partnership and to recover damages for breach of an alleged partnership agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 13, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion and which appointed a temporary receiver of the property, assets, rights and obligations of said partnership. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; and plaintiff’s motion for a temporary receiver denied. Special Term found that the business would not be jeopardized if a receiver were not appointed. In view of such finding, with which we agree, there was no justification for the appointment of a receiver. The issue as to whether there was in fact a partnership must await determination on the basis of all the proof to be adduced upon a plenary trial. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 828, 251 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmentola-v-morrell-nyappdiv-1964.