Serval v. Vorburger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serval v. Vorburger

33 A.D.3d 495, 822 N.Y.S.2d 446

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 495 (Serval v. Vorburger) 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

Serval v. Vorburger, 33 A.D.3d 495, 822 N.Y.S.2d 446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 3, 2006, which, in a proceeding to dissolve a partnership, inter alia, held that defendant’s attorney is not entitled to retain any of the money he received in connection with certain services allegedly rendered to or benefitting the partnership, and directed defendant’s attorney to turn over all of such money to the partnership, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of plaintiffs.

Defendant is not aggrieved by the order directing his attorney to turn over money (CPLR 5511; see Levine v Angsten, 6 AD3d 340 [2004]; Broadway Equities v Metropolitan Elec. Mfg. Co., 306 AD2d 426, 427 [2003]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

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

Appeals from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 3, 2006, which, in a proceeding to dissolve a partnership, inter alia, held that defendant’s attorney is not entitled to retain any of the money he received in connection with certain services allegedly rendered to or benefitting the partnership, and directed defendant’s attorney to turn over all of such money to the partnership, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of plaintiffs.

Defendant is not aggrieved by the order directing his attorney to turn over money (CPLR 5511; see Levine v Angsten, 6 AD3d 340 [2004]; Broadway Equities v Metropolitan Elec. Mfg. Co., 306 AD2d 426, 427 [2003]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 495, 822 N.Y.S.2d 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serval-v-vorburger-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack