Opinion
2021-06318 Index 652316/12
11-16-2021
Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Howard Kaplan et al., Defendants-Respondents. Appeal No. 14620-14621-14622-14623 Case Nos. 2018-3496, 2020-02522, 2020-02479, 2020-04875
Kaplan Rice LLP, New York (Howard J. Kaplan of counsel), for Howard Kaplan, Michelle Rice and Kaplan Rice, LLP, appellants/respondents. Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York (Michael L. Cook of counsel), for Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP and Stanley S. Arkin, respondents/appellants. Arkin Solbakken LLP, New York (Robert Angelillo of counsel), for Lisa C. Solbakken, respondent.
Kaplan Rice LLP, New York (Howard J. Kaplan of counsel), for Howard Kaplan, Michelle Rice and Kaplan Rice, LLP, appellants/respondents.
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York (Michael L. Cook of counsel), for Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP and Stanley S. Arkin, respondents/appellants.
Arkin Solbakken LLP, New York (Robert Angelillo of counsel), for Lisa C. Solbakken, respondent.
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Mazzarelli, Moulton, Scarpulla, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2018, April 13, 2020, and December 3, 2020, which made determinations regarding the parties' rights and obligations arising from the dissolution of their law firm, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, there is no basis to disturb the court's determinations contained in its order confirming the Referee's decision, its findings in its decision after trial on the accounting claim, or its denial of plaintiffs' motion to renew the decision after trial. Primarily, the court properly determined that after defendants Kaplan and Rice withdrew from the law firm, Arkin was solely responsible for post-dissolution rent (see Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v Kaplan, 138 A.D.3d 415 [1st Dept 2016]; Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v Kaplan, 120 A.D.3d 422 [1st Dept 2014]). Similarly, the court properly determined that Arkin was required to reimburse the law firm for a drawdown of the firm's letter of credit covering post-dissolution rent. The court also correctly imposed certain expenses on Arkin that were not attributable to the firm's winding-up.
Defendants' arguments concerning the court's decision after trial are unavailing. There is no reason to disturb the court's determination of the partners' profit share allocations. Since the court found that an agreement existed between the partners as to how to allocate profits, Partnership Law § 40 was inapplicable (see Liddle, Robinson & Shoemaker v Shoemaker, 309 A.D.2d 688, 690 [1st Dept 2003]). The record also supports the court's determination that Solbakken was an equity partner as of the date of dissolution. Finally, the court did not err in its treatment of the firm's noncash assets.
We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.