Schwartz v. Kozak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Kozak

85 A.D.2d 507, 444 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16272

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 507 (Schwartz v. Kozak) 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

Schwartz v. Kozak, 85 A.D.2d 507, 444 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and interlocutory judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Tyler, J.), entered April 13, 1981, granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the complaint, and dismissing the first counterclaim and making certain declarations in favor of plaintiff, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied in toto. The case is not clear enough to warrant summary judgment. (Cf. Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404.) In particular, there is an issue of fact as to the terms of the oral partnership agreement, and as to which, if any, of defendant’s extra-accounting activities were to be deemed part of the partnership business in which plaintiff would participate. There are also issues of fact as to whether plaintiff diverted clients to himself on the dissolution of the partnership by tactics which constituted a breach of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Silverman, JJ.

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

Order and interlocutory judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Tyler, J.), entered April 13, 1981, granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the complaint, and dismissing the first counterclaim and making certain declarations in favor of plaintiff, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied in toto. The case is not clear enough to warrant summary judgment. (Cf. Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404.) In particular, there is an issue of fact as to the terms of the oral partnership agreement, and as to which, if any, of defendant’s extra-accounting activities were to be deemed part of the partnership business in which plaintiff would participate. There are also issues of fact as to whether plaintiff diverted clients to himself on the dissolution of the partnership by tactics which constituted a breach of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Silverman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 507, 444 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-kozak-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack