Peterson v. Neville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterson v. Neville

58 A.D.3d 489, 870 N.Y.S.2d 348

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 489 (Peterson v. Neville) 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

Peterson v. Neville, 58 A.D.3d 489, 870 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered October 1, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the first and second causes of action seeking an accounting of the partnerships of Neville, Peterson & Williams, and Neville Peterson LLP unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The causes of action seeking an accounting of the partnerships on the basis that defendants (former partners) withdrew excess profits, were properly dismissed as the tax returns of the respective partnerships state that defendants had positive capital account balances. Plaintiffs are bound by the representations that were made in the partnerships’ tax returns (see Acme Am. Repairs, Inc. v Uretsky, 39 AD3d 675, 677 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 979 [2007]; Naghavi v New York Life Ins. Co., 260 AD2d 252 [1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, including that the motion court’s application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel in this case violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered October 1, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the first and second causes of action seeking an accounting of the partnerships of Neville, Peterson & Williams, and Neville Peterson LLP unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The causes of action seeking an accounting of the partnerships on the basis that defendants (former partners) withdrew excess profits, were properly dismissed as the tax returns of the respective partnerships state that defendants had positive capital account balances. Plaintiffs are bound by the representations that were made in the partnerships’ tax returns (see Acme Am. Repairs, Inc. v Uretsky, 39 AD3d 675, 677 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 979 [2007]; Naghavi v New York Life Ins. Co., 260 AD2d 252 [1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, including that the motion court’s application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel in this case violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 489, 870 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-neville-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack