Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1867–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Burry v. Madison Park Ownergreen2 sentences2012Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a claim for breach of fiduciary duty; paragraphs 18 and 19 of the complaint allege that defendant Donovan continues to operate the partnership in violation of the Partnership Agreement and failed to distribute Yee’s interest to Yee’s estate in accordance with the Partnership Agreement (see Burry v Madison Park Owner LLC, 84 AD3d 699, 699-700 [2011]). 2012Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a claim for breach of fiduciary duty; paragraphs 18 and 19 of the complaint allege that defendant Donovan continues to operate the partnership in violation of the Partnership Agreement and failed to distribute Yee’s interest to Yee’s estate in accordance with the Partnership Agreement (see Burry v Madison Park Owner LLC, 84 AD3d 699, 699-700 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Meinhard v. Salmongreen2 sentences1981The principle is equally well established that a managing or general partner of a limited partnership is bound in a fiduciary relationship with the limited partners. * (Riviera Congress Assoc. v Yassky, 18 NY2d, at p 547; see Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458 , supra.) “[T]hose in control of a business must deal fairly with the interests of the other investors and this is so regardless of whether the business is in corporate or partnership form.” (Lichtyger v Franchard Corp., 18 NY2d, at p 536; see Leibert v Clapp, 13 NY2d 313 ; Meinhard v Salmon, supra.) The stockholders or limited partners are c 1981The principle is equally well established that a managing or general partner of a limited partnership is bound in a fiduciary relationship with the limited partners. * (Riviera Congress Assoc. v Yassky, 18 NY2d, at p 547; see Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458 , supra.) “[T]hose in control of a business must deal fairly with the interests of the other investors and this is so regardless of whether the business is in corporate or partnership form.” (Lichtyger v Franchard Corp., 18 NY2d, at p 536; see Leibert v Clapp, 13 NY2d 313 ; Meinhard v Salmon, supra.) The stockholders or limited partners are c | 1 | 3 |
Riviera Congress Associates ex rel. Lewy v. Yasskygreen2 sentences2008The study, which recommended legislation to authorize derivative actions by limited partners, was completed (but not issued) before we handed down our decision in Riviera, which held that limited partners are analogous to cestuis que trustent, and are “authorized to sue as limited partners on behalf of the partnership entity to enforce a partnership claim when those in control of the business wrongfully decline to do so” ( 18 NY2d at 547 ). 2008The study, which recommended legislation to authorize derivative actions by limited partners, was completed (but not issued) before we handed down our decision in Riviera, which held that limited partners are analogous to cestuis que trustent, and are "authorized to sue as limited partners on behalf of the partnership entity to enforce a partnership claim when those in control of the business wrongfully decline to do so" ( 18 NY2d at 547 ). | 1 | 2 |
220-52 Associates v. Edelmangreen1 sentence2005On a previous appeal, this Court held that service of the notice of dissolution and demand for accounting effected the immediate dissolution of the partnership and established Edward’s right to an accounting ( 241 AD2d 365, 367 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Winshipgreen1 sentence1994In deciding the Partnership’s motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations asserted, both in the complaint and in any accompanying affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion, as true and must resolve all inferences which reasonably flow therefrom in favor of the plaintiff (Joel v Weber, 166 AD2d 130, 135-136 ; see also, Sanders v Winship, 57 NY2d 391, 394 ). | 1 | 1 |
Leibert v. Clappgreen1 sentence1981The principle is equally well established that a managing or general partner of a limited partnership is bound in a fiduciary relationship with the limited partners. * (Riviera Congress Assoc. v Yassky, 18 NY2d, at p 547; see Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458 , supra.) “[T]hose in control of a business must deal fairly with the interests of the other investors and this is so regardless of whether the business is in corporate or partnership form.” (Lichtyger v Franchard Corp., 18 NY2d, at p 536; see Leibert v Clapp, 13 NY2d 313 ; Meinhard v Salmon, supra.) The stockholders or limited partners are c | 1 | 1 |
Lichtyger v. Franchard Corp.green2 sentences1981(Partnership Law, § 99.) The Court of Appeals has held that these restrictions on a limited partner’s right to sue are intended “solely to restrain limited partners from interfering with the right of the general partners to carry on the business of the partnership” (Riviera Congress Assoc. v Yassky, 18 NY2d, at p 547 ; see Lichtyger v Franchard Corp., 18 NY2d 528, 535 ), and do not bar a limited partner either from suing derivatively to enforce a partnership claim where the general partners wrongfully refuse to do so (Riviera Congress Assoc. v Yassky, supra; Partnership Law, §§ 115-a, 115-c [L 1981The principle is equally well established that a managing or general partner of a limited partnership is bound in a fiduciary relationship with the limited partners. * (Riviera Congress Assoc. v Yassky, 18 NY2d, at p 547; see Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458 , supra.) “[T]hose in control of a business must deal fairly with the interests of the other investors and this is so regardless of whether the business is in corporate or partnership form.” (Lichtyger v Franchard Corp., 18 NY2d, at p 536; see Leibert v Clapp, 13 NY2d 313 ; Meinhard v Salmon, supra.) The stockholders or limited partners are c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anastos v. Sable
green
2 sentences2018The trial court in Anastos , in determining the value of the plaintiff's interest, applied a minority discount to reflect that there was "no ready market for the purchase of an interest in a general partnership whose primary asset is real estate where the partnership agreement contains limitations and restrictions on the control that any minority owner can exercise" ( Anastos , 443 Mass. at 147 -148 , 819 N.E.2d 587 ). 2018The trial court in Anastos , in determining the value of the plaintiff's interest, applied a minority discount to reflect that there was "no ready market for the purchase of an interest in a general partnership whose primary asset is real estate where the partnership agreement contains limitations and restrictions on the control that any minority owner can exercise" ( Anastos , 443 Mass. at 147 -148 , 819 N.E.2d 587 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stevens v. St. Joseph's Hospital
green
1 sentence2000Joseph’s Hosp., 52 AD2d 722 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Shea v. Hambro America Inc.
green
1 sentence2000In any event, a partnership cause of action belongs only to the partnership itself or to the partners jointly, and a partner may not sue to recover on a partnership claim in his or her individual capacity (see, Shea v Hambro Am.., 200 AD2d 371 ; Stevens v St. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Joel v. Weber
green
1 sentence1994In deciding the Partnership’s motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations asserted, both in the complaint and in any accompanying affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion, as true and must resolve all inferences which reasonably flow therefrom in favor of the plaintiff (Joel v Weber, 166 AD2d 130, 135-136 ; see also, Sanders v Winship, 57 NY2d 391, 394 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Valladares v. Valladares
green
1 sentence1986The McDermott pension grew and appreciated for the benefit of the economic partnership by virtue of the equitable distribution statute, a constitutional law (see, Tucker v Tucker, 80 AD2d 244 , mod on other grounds 55 NY2d 378 ) that created property interests wholly unknown at common law. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Tucker v. Tucker
green
1 sentence1986The McDermott pension grew and appreciated for the benefit of the economic partnership by virtue of the equitable distribution statute, a constitutional law (see, Tucker v Tucker, 80 AD2d 244 , mod on other grounds 55 NY2d 378 ) that created property interests wholly unknown at common law. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Van Voorhis v. Webster
neutral
1 sentence1981The principle is equally well established that a managing or general partner of a limited partnership is bound in a fiduciary relationship with the limited partners. * (Riviera Congress Assoc. v Yassky, 18 NY2d, at p 547; see Meinhard v Salmon, 249 NY 458 , supra.) “[T]hose in control of a business must deal fairly with the interests of the other investors and this is so regardless of whether the business is in corporate or partnership form.” (Lichtyger v Franchard Corp., 18 NY2d, at p 536; see Leibert v Clapp, 13 NY2d 313 ; Meinhard v Salmon, supra.) The stockholders or limited partners are c | 1 | 1981–1981 |
In Re the Accounting of Hearns
neutral
1 sentence1976(Matter of Hearns, 214 NY 426, 434 .) Here, however, the partnership claim asserted bears no relation to the affairs of a decedent. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Williams v. Hartshorn
green
1 sentence1966(See, also, Williams v. Hartshorn, 296 N. Y. 49 .) We hold that the plaintiffs are authorized to sue as limited partners on behalf of the partnership entity to enforce a partnership claim when those in control of the business wrongfully decline to do so. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Sperry Rand Corp. v. Pyramid Crane Co.
neutral
1 sentence1962Under these circumstances it could not be said that a misnomer occurred, which could be corrected pursuant to a motion to correct the summons under section 105 (cf. Sperry Rand Corp. v. Pyramid Crane Co., 19 Misc 2d 916 ) — had one been made. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Belleson v. Skilbeck
green
1 sentence1935Cf. Belleson v. Skilbeck, 185 Minn. 537 .) Although the complaint must be dismissed as against the partnership because of the bar against one of the partners, no such obstacle stands in the way of a recovery against the other partner individually. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Buchanan v. . Whitman
neutral
1 sentence1921In Buchanan v. Whitman ( 151 N. Y. 253 ) the lease had been made to a partnership with the privilege of renewal. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Munro v. Alaire
neutral
1 sentence1867As to the third reason, if it be consistent with the favor shown to arbitrations and awards, (Munro v. Alaire 2 Cai. 320 ,) it would not apply where by the very instrument out of which the partnership claim arises, it is provided that such claim shall not be payable until a dispute respecting it has been submitted to arbitrators. | 1 | 1867–1867 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.