Pittoni v. Boland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pittoni v. Boland

249 A.D.2d 458, 671 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4245

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 458 (Pittoni v. Boland) 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

Pittoni v. Boland, 249 A.D.2d 458, 671 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting of partnership assets, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated March 24, 1997, as, after a hearing, dismissed their seventh affirmative defense and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an accounting of his partnership interest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff had a right to an accounting from his former partners (see, Partnership Law § 74; Arrants v Dell Angelo, 73 AD2d 633). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, allegations of the plaintiff’s unclean hands will not relieve them of their duty to account to the plaintiff (see, Dwyer v Nicholson, 109 AD2d 862, 863; Bell v Herzog, 39 AD2d 813).

[459]*459The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting of partnership assets, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated March 24, 1997, as, after a hearing, dismissed their seventh affirmative defense and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an accounting of his partnership interest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff had a right to an accounting from his former partners (see, Partnership Law § 74; Arrants v Dell Angelo, 73 AD2d 633). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, allegations of the plaintiff’s unclean hands will not relieve them of their duty to account to the plaintiff (see, Dwyer v Nicholson, 109 AD2d 862, 863; Bell v Herzog, 39 AD2d 813).

[459]*459The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 458, 671 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittoni-v-boland-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack