New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Partnership Law § 23 (2026)

Partnership charged with knowledge of or notice to partner

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 23. Partnership charged with knowledge of or notice to partner.
Notice to any partner of any matter relating to partnership affairs, and
the knowledge of the partner acting in the particular matter, acquired
while a partner or then present to his mind, and the knowledge of any
other partner who reasonably could and should have communicated it to
the acting partner, operate as notice to or knowledge of the
partnership, except in the case of a fraud on the partnership committed
by or with the consent of that partner.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1987–2017 · leading case: The Ltd., Inc. v. McCrory Corp., 683 F. Supp. 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The Ltd., Inc. v. McCrory Corp., 683 F. Supp. 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “Even if Divine and Broser knew that the lease extension was being concealed, and even if that knowledge is properly imputed to DBG, see N.Y. Partnership L. § 23 (McKinney 1948), the partners’ failure to make disclosure to the plaintiff constitutes substantial assistance only if…”

Mount Vernon Fire Ins. v. East Side Renaissance Assocs., 893 F. Supp. 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). · cites it 2× “Notice to the Partnership Under N.Y. Partnership Law § 23 (McKinney 1988), Notice to any partner of any matter relating to partnership affairs, and the knowledge of the partner acting in the particular matter, acquired while a partner or then *247 present to his mind, and the…”

Kirschenbaum v. 650 Fifth Avenue, 257 F. Supp. 3d 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “”); N.Y. Partnership Law § 23 (“Notice to any partner of any matter relating to partnership affairs, *523 and the knowledge of the partner acting in the particular matter, acquired while a partner or then present to his mind, and the knowledge of any other partner who reasonably…”

Franco v. English, 210 A.D.2d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “While it is ordinarily the case that the knowledge of the general partners acting in a particular matter operates as knowledge to the rest of the partnership, such knowledge cannot be imputed when the general partners are engaged in the commission of a fraud upon the partnership…”

Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co. v. Jayhawk Assocs., 766 F. Supp. 124 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). · cites it 2× “” N.Y. Partnership Law § 23 (McKinney 1988).”

Brown v. Sagamore Hotel, 184 A.D.2d 47 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “The Court of Appeals rejected that contention upon the ground that notice to the physician "depended upon several contingencies” (supra, at 697), including whether the administrator knew that service was being made upon the physician as well as the hospital and that he should…”

Callari v. Pellitieri, 130 A.D.2d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “Since it is claimed that defendants were partners in ownership of the property, factual issues exist regarding defendants’ right to control the activity and *937 the imputation to defendants Sucher and Kleiner of actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition (see,…”

Masson v. Masson, 110 A.D.3d 1402 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). “7 Notwithstanding Kopko’s denial of any knowledge of or consent to the payments made to plaintiff from defendant’s business accounts — allegedly at Wiggins’ instruction — and his claim that *1405 defendant is not bound by Wiggins’ actions in this regard, it is undisputed that…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.