From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iannazzo v. Stanson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 2004
8 A.D.3d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3896, 3897.

Decided June 15, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2003, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, dissolving the parties' partnership, directing an accounting, declaring the parties' Memorandum of Understanding void and dismissing as moot plaintiff's cause of action for a declaration that the parties' Option Agreement is enforceable, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare the Option Agreement void, and otherwise affirmed, with one bill of costs in favor of defendant, payable by plaintiffs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 25, 2003, which denied plaintiff's motion to disqualify defendant's counsel, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Pitney, Hardin, Kipp Szuch LLP, New York (Frederick L. Whitmer of counsel), for appellants.

Bressler, Amery Ross, P.C., New York (J. Michael Riordan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Lerner, Gonzalez, JJ.


Ample evidence supports the trial court's findings that the Florida property was partnership property that plaintiff had sold but misrepresented to defendant that he had rented, that such misrepresentation was part of a fraudulent scheme by plaintiff to retain the property or the proceeds of its sale for himself, and that such fraud materially induced defendant's execution of the Memorandum of Understanding and warrants the dissolution of their partnership. The same fraud also renders the parties' Option Agreement void, and we modify to declare so. The motion to disqualify was properly denied for failure to show that counsel's testimony at trial was necessary ( see Matter of Galluccio v. Fochios, 303 A.D.2d 190), or that it would have been prejudicial to defendant ( see Ansonia Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 277 A.D.2d 98, 99, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 715). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Iannazzo v. Stanson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 2004
8 A.D.3d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Iannazzo v. Stanson

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT P. IANNAZZO, ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MILTON E…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 15, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 490

Citing Cases

Silberman Silberman v. First Refm. Episcopal Church

The alleged conduct on plaintiff's part, which formed the basis of the malpractice defense, occurred during…

Gonzalez v. Demairo

The Court next addresses the branches of defendants' cross motion which seek to disqualify plaintiff's…