Rapuano v. Production Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rapuano v. Production Co.

303 A.D.2d 243, 756 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2507

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 243 (Rapuano v. Production Co.) 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

Rapuano v. Production Co., 303 A.D.2d 243, 756 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2002, which, in separate actions to dissolve two partnerships, denied petitioner’s motions for the appointment of a receiver and granted respondents’ cross motions for accountings by each side to the other, unanimously affirmed, with separate bills of costs.

Petitioner’s motions for a receiver were properly denied for lack of a sufficient showing of waste or mismanagement over the 10 years since petitioner and respondents disassociated, and where the partnerships’ main assets consist of real property (see B.D. & F. Realty Corp. v Lerner, 232 AD2d 346, 346 [1996]). No reason appears why the parties’ respective interests in the partnerships cannot be adjusted in orderly fashion with an accounting (see Shandell v Katz, 95 AD2d 742, 743 [1983]). Indeed, petitioner’s claim that the sale of the partnerships’ real property to outside parties is necessary for him to realize his share cannot be evaluated without an accounting. We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2002, which, in separate actions to dissolve two partnerships, denied petitioner’s motions for the appointment of a receiver and granted respondents’ cross motions for accountings by each side to the other, unanimously affirmed, with separate bills of costs.

Petitioner’s motions for a receiver were properly denied for lack of a sufficient showing of waste or mismanagement over the 10 years since petitioner and respondents disassociated, and where the partnerships’ main assets consist of real property (see B.D. & F. Realty Corp. v Lerner, 232 AD2d 346, 346 [1996]). No reason appears why the parties’ respective interests in the partnerships cannot be adjusted in orderly fashion with an accounting (see Shandell v Katz, 95 AD2d 742, 743 [1983]). Indeed, petitioner’s claim that the sale of the partnerships’ real property to outside parties is necessary for him to realize his share cannot be evaluated without an accounting. We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 243, 756 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapuano-v-production-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack