St. James Plaza v. Notey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

St. James Plaza v. Notey

166 A.D.2d 438, 560 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 438 (St. James Plaza v. Notey) 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

St. James Plaza v. Notey, 166 A.D.2d 438, 560 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In two consolidated actions, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking reimbursement of moneys owed under a partnership agreement, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), entered July 31, 1989, as denied the branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The liability of partners for the contractual liabilities of the partnership is joint and several, each partner is liable for the whole amount of the debt of the partnership, not merely for a proportionate share (see, Partnership Law § 25; Midwood Dev. Corp. v K 12th Assocs., 146 AD2d 754). Because there are allegations of insolvency of the partnership, the individual parties, as both partners and stockholders are proper parties to this litigation. We have already ruled that, under the partnership agreement, and shareholders agreement, entered into by the individual defendants, the stock and partnership interests are to be treated as indivisible units (see, St. James Plaza v Notey, 111 AD2d 228). The defendants in this action are both partners and stockholders. In light of our previous determination, we find that the denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants was proper. Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In two consolidated actions, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking reimbursement of moneys owed under a partnership agreement, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), entered July 31, 1989, as denied the branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The liability of partners for the contractual liabilities of the partnership is joint and several, each partner is liable for the whole amount of the debt of the partnership, not merely for a proportionate share (see, Partnership Law § 25; Midwood Dev. Corp. v K 12th Assocs., 146 AD2d 754). Because there are allegations of insolvency of the partnership, the individual parties, as both partners and stockholders are proper parties to this litigation. We have already ruled that, under the partnership agreement, and shareholders agreement, entered into by the individual defendants, the stock and partnership interests are to be treated as indivisible units (see, St. James Plaza v Notey, 111 AD2d 228). The defendants in this action are both partners and stockholders. In light of our previous determination, we find that the denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants was proper. Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 438, 560 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-james-plaza-v-notey-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack