Roy C. Knapp & Sons, Inc. v. Weiss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roy C. Knapp & Sons, Inc. v. Weiss

204 A.D.2d 422, 614 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4843

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

DecidedMay 9, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 422 (Roy C. Knapp & Sons, Inc. v. Weiss) 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

Roy C. Knapp & Sons, Inc. v. Weiss, 204 A.D.2d 422, 614 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered July 16, 1992, which granted the motion of the defendant Murray Weiss to dismiss the complaint insofar it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the defendant Murray Weiss adduced persuasive documentary evidence (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]) establishing that he was neither a general partner nor limited partner in the defendant limited partnership, subject to potential liability pursuant to Partnership Law § 96. Accordingly, he demonstrated his freedom from personal liability (see, Hoffman v Eisenberg, 140 AD2d 306) and thus, the complaint was properly dismissed as against him.

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered July 16, 1992, which granted the motion of the defendant Murray Weiss to dismiss the complaint insofar it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the defendant Murray Weiss adduced persuasive documentary evidence (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]) establishing that he was neither a general partner nor limited partner in the defendant limited partnership, subject to potential liability pursuant to Partnership Law § 96. Accordingly, he demonstrated his freedom from personal liability (see, Hoffman v Eisenberg, 140 AD2d 306) and thus, the complaint was properly dismissed as against him.

We have reviewed the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 422, 614 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-c-knapp-sons-inc-v-weiss-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack