White v. Guarente

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. Guarente

54 A.D.2d 878, 388 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14666

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 878 (White v. Guarente) 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

White v. Guarente, 54 A.D.2d 878, 388 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 29 and February 4, 1976, respectively, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Korn, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Birns, Nunez and Yesawich, JJ.; Kupferman, J. P., and Capozzoli, J., concur in the result in the following memorandum by Kupferman, J. P.: I concur in the result only. The matter of whether a limited partner is in privity with the partnership’s accounting firm is not currently free from doubt. (Cf. Ernst & Ernst v Hochfelder, 425 US 185, 192, f 9; Lichtyger v Franchard Corp., 18 NY2d 528, and Ultra-mares Corp. v Touche, 255 NY 170, do not foreclose the issue.) While the limited partner has no voice in management, and the liability is limited, there is no corporate veil to pierce.

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

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 29 and February 4, 1976, respectively, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Korn, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Birns, Nunez and Yesawich, JJ.; Kupferman, J. P., and Capozzoli, J., concur in the result in the following memorandum by Kupferman, J. P.: I concur in the result only. The matter of whether a limited partner is in privity with the partnership’s accounting firm is not currently free from doubt. (Cf. Ernst & Ernst v Hochfelder, 425 US 185, 192, f 9; Lichtyger v Franchard Corp., 18 NY2d 528, and Ultra-mares Corp. v Touche, 255 NY 170, do not foreclose the issue.) While the limited partner has no voice in management, and the liability is limited, there is no corporate veil to pierce.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 878, 388 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-guarente-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack