From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Giblin v. Sechzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 1983
97 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

November 28, 1983


In an action, inter alia, for a partnership accounting, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), dated September 19, 1983, as denied those branches of their motion which sought a preliminary injunction and an order disqualifying defendants' counsel. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Special Term correctly denied plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the other partners from expelling them from the partnership. The partnership agreement expressly provides that a partner may be expelled by majority vote upon a determination that his or her continued membership is undesirable. Such a provision is valid ( Gelder Med. Group v Webber, 41 N.Y.2d 680, 683; Millet v Slocum, 4 A.D.2d 528, affd 5 N.Y.2d 734; Gill v Mallory, 274 App. Div. 84, 85) and is binding, irrespective of whether plaintiffs signed the agreement, since their course of conduct demonstrated ratification of and compliance with the agreement ( Corr v Hoffman, 256 N.Y. 254; Matter of Vann [ Kreindler, Relkin Goldberg], 78 A.D.2d 255, affd 54 N.Y.2d 936; Matter of Levin-Townsend Computer Corp. [ Holland], 29 A.D.2d 925). In addition, plaintiffs can obtain sufficient redress through other remedies (see, e.g., Curtin v Glazier, 94 A.D.2d 434; St. James Plaza v Notey, 95 A.D.2d 804; Dwyer v Nicholson, 89 A.D.2d 597; Napoli v Domnitch, 18 A.D.2d 707, affd 14 N.Y.2d 508) and, therefore, will not suffer irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunction. Nor is there any basis for disqualification of defendants' counsel at this juncture as plaintiffs have made nothing more than conclusory assertions that there is a conflict of interest ( Lewis v Palestine, 50 A.D.2d 752). Should facts later develop which would establish such a conflict, plaintiffs may, if so advised, renew their motion for disqualification ( Robbins v Ellman, 65 A.D.2d 519). Titone, J.P., Lazer, O'Connor and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Giblin v. Sechzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 1983
97 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Giblin v. Sechzer

Case Details

Full title:BERNADETTE GIBLIN et al., Appellants, v. PHILLIP S. SECHZER et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 28, 1983

Citations

97 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Villano v. Villano

Mere conclusory allegations, falling short of factual assertions, do not give rise to disqualification. Olmoz…

Teng Fang Jiang v. Bldg. No. One, LLC

Nor have plaintiffs established that the interests of the co-defendant and Kavanaugh are materially adverse (…