§Why CasetextPricing

Robert J. Congel, et al.,, Respondents,v.Marc A. Malfitano, Appellant.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Kaufman v. Cohen

    307 A.D.2d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 1,165 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that misrepresentations by one business partner to other partners about the value of a business interest was "essential" to completing the underlying misappropriation of a business opportunity

  2. Cole v. Macklowe

    99 A.D.3d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting interpretation of a partnership agreement that "represents a windfall to the defendants that is absurd, not commercially reasonable and contrary to the express terms of the agreement and thus the intent of the parties."

  3. Ederer v. Gursky

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9960 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that New York's limited liability partnership legislation "eliminated the vicarious liability of a general partner"

  4. Creel v. Lilly

    354 Md. 77 (Md. 1999)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that "nothing in Maryland's UPA . . . or any of our case law . . . supports an unequivocal requirement of a forced sale"

  5. Gelman v. Buehler

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1991 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Gelman, the parties allegedly entered into an oral agreement to continue a partnership until the partners found a business with growth potential, acquired it, and increased its value until it could be sold at a profit (see id. at 536, 964 N.Y.S.2d 80, 986 N.E.2d 914).

  6. Dental Heal. Associ. v. Zangeneh

    34 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 14 times

    2005-04952. November 21, 2006. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a covenant not to compete, the defendant AM Zangeneh appeals from an Interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), entered January 20, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff Steven P. Stern and against him, inter alia, in the principal sums of $487,487.80 in compensatory damages, $243,698.40 in punitive damages, and $38, 6515.58 in costs and disbursements.

  7. BPR Group Ltd. Partnership v. Bendetson

    453 Mass. 853 (Mass. 2009)   Cited 10 times

    February 2, 2009. May 21, 2009. Present: MARSHALL, C.J., IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, BOTSFORD, GANTS, JJ. Contract, Joint venture. Joint Enterprise. Uniform Partnership Act. Partnership, Agreement, Dissolution. Damages, Breach of partnership agreement, Interest. In an action brought in Superior Court by a limited partnership (plaintiff) seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that notices it had sent to the defendants dissolved their real estate joint ventures under G.L. c. 108A, § 31 (1) ( b)

  8. Kantor v. Mesibov

    8 Misc. 3d 722 (N.Y. Misc. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    13960/2001. May 23, 2005. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim Ballon, Garden City, for plaintiffs. Silverman, Perlstein Acampura, LLP, Jericho, for William J. Mesibov and others, defendants. OPINION OF THE COURT LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the first, second, third, seventh, ninth, tenth and eleventh causes of action of the amended supplemental complaint. Background In this derivative action brought on behalf of Columbia Realty Associates, a domestic partnership, plaintiffs

  9. Silverman v. Caplin

    150 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 14 times
    Dismissing legal claims for breach of contract and fraud concerning failure to make payments to partnership

  10. Osborne v. Workman

    621 S.W.2d 478 (Ark. 1981)   Cited 2 times

    No. 81-36. Opinion delivered September 28, 1981 1. PARTNERSHIPS — PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT — RIGHT TO DISSOLUTION UNDER UPA SUBJECT TO TERMS OF AGREEMENT. — Appellant joined other doctors in forming a medical clinic and entered into a partnership agreement which specified no definite term but provided that it would continue until the partnership was dissolved mutually or by law, and that if a doctor withdrew he was to be paid his percentage of the assets, excluding accounts receivable. Held: In a suit

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation

  12. Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13

    (a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review