Seiden v. Gogick, Seiden, Byrne & O'Neill, L. L. P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seiden v. Gogick, Seiden, Byrne & O'Neill, L. L. P.

278 A.D.2d 302, 718 N.Y.S.2d 188, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12899

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 302 (Seiden v. Gogick, Seiden, Byrne & O'Neill, L. L. P.) 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

Seiden v. Gogick, Seiden, Byrne & O'Neill, L. L. P., 278 A.D.2d 302, 718 N.Y.S.2d 188, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the defendants-counterclaim plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered January 4, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to require them to post an undertaking to secure the plaintiff’s interest in the defendant-counterclaim plaintiff Gogick, Seiden, Byrne & O’Neill, L. L. P.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing them to post an undertaking (see, Partnership Law § 75; Netburn v Fischman, 81 Misc 2d 117). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Smith, 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, the defendants-counterclaim plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered January 4, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to require them to post an undertaking to secure the plaintiff’s interest in the defendant-counterclaim plaintiff Gogick, Seiden, Byrne & O’Neill, L. L. P.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing them to post an undertaking (see, Partnership Law § 75; Netburn v Fischman, 81 Misc 2d 117). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 302, 718 N.Y.S.2d 188, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seiden-v-gogick-seiden-byrne-oneill-l-l-p-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack