Saltzstein v. Payne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saltzstein v. Payne

292 A.D.2d 585, 740 N.Y.S.2d 95, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3219

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 585 (Saltzstein v. Payne) 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

Saltzstein v. Payne, 292 A.D.2d 585, 740 N.Y.S.2d 95, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a partnership accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered September 19, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action for a share of the value of the defendant’s good will.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action for a share of the value of the defendant’s good will. The partnership agreement at issue did not specify that good will was a firm asset, no consideration was paid for good will when new partners joined, no amounts were paid or given on account of good will, and the firm’s financial statements did not reflect any good will. Thus, “it is clear that the partners did not otherwise view good will as a firm asset” (Kaplan v Schachter & Co., 261 AD2d 440, 441; see Dawson v White & Case, 88 NY2d 666). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a partnership accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered September 19, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action for a share of the value of the defendant’s good will.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action for a share of the value of the defendant’s good will. The partnership agreement at issue did not specify that good will was a firm asset, no consideration was paid for good will when new partners joined, no amounts were paid or given on account of good will, and the firm’s financial statements did not reflect any good will. Thus, “it is clear that the partners did not otherwise view good will as a firm asset” (Kaplan v Schachter & Co., 261 AD2d 440, 441; see Dawson v White & Case, 88 NY2d 666). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 585, 740 N.Y.S.2d 95, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saltzstein-v-payne-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack