Tepper v. Botein, Hays & Sklar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tepper v. Botein, Hays & Sklar

270 A.D.2d 53, 704 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2613

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 53 (Tepper v. Botein, Hays & Sklar) 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

Tepper v. Botein, Hays & Sklar, 270 A.D.2d 53, 704 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 20, 1999, which, upon the prior grant of defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, dismissed the complaint in this action for indemnification pursuant to Partnership Law § 40 (2) for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Assuming the truth of the complaint’s allegations and resolving all inferences which reasonably flow therefrom in plaintiffs favor (see, Sanders v Winship, 57 NY2d 391), the court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action since the complaint fails sufficiently to allege that the legal fees incurred by plaintiff resulted from the ordinary and proper conduct of the partnership’s business or from the preservation of the partnership’s business or property (Partnership Law § 40 [2]; see, Gramercy Equities Corp. v Dumont, 72 NY2d 560). Accordingly, defendants were not required to indemnify plaintiff for those fees. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Ellerin, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 20, 1999, which, upon the prior grant of defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, dismissed the complaint in this action for indemnification pursuant to Partnership Law § 40 (2) for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Assuming the truth of the complaint’s allegations and resolving all inferences which reasonably flow therefrom in plaintiffs favor (see, Sanders v Winship, 57 NY2d 391), the court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action since the complaint fails sufficiently to allege that the legal fees incurred by plaintiff resulted from the ordinary and proper conduct of the partnership’s business or from the preservation of the partnership’s business or property (Partnership Law § 40 [2]; see, Gramercy Equities Corp. v Dumont, 72 NY2d 560). Accordingly, defendants were not required to indemnify plaintiff for those fees. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Ellerin, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 53, 704 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tepper-v-botein-hays-sklar-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack