United Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Davidow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

United Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Davidow

253 A.D.2d 462, 675 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8841

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 10, 1998·Published

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for an accounting of [463] partnership assets, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, and by letter of its counsel dated May 18, 1998, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated June 30, 1997, as granted the motion of the defendants Sanford Davidow, Rimland-Davidow, and A.M.H. Management Corporation for partial summary judgment on their counterclaim and determined that the defendant Sanford Davidow was the owner of a 75% interest in the partnership and that the plaintiff was the owner of a 25% interest.

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

We agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the respondents sufficiently established the parties’ respective interests in the partnership and properties at issue (cf., Okun v Braunstein, 172 AD2d 259). Further, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Krausman and McGinity, 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 of [463] partnership assets, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, and by letter of its counsel dated May 18, 1998, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated June 30, 1997, as granted the motion of the defendants Sanford Davidow, Rimland-Davidow, and A.M.H. Management Corporation for partial summary judgment on their counterclaim and determined that the defendant Sanford Davidow was the owner of a 75% interest in the partnership and that the plaintiff was the owner of a 25% interest.

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

We agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the respondents sufficiently established the parties’ respective interests in the partnership and properties at issue (cf., Okun v Braunstein, 172 AD2d 259). Further, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

United Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Davidow, 253 A.D.2d 462, 675 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 462 (United Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Davidow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related