From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gray v. Canalizo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1993
199 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 27, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The defendant's allegation that he satisfied the debt which he owed the plaintiff by transferring to him the interest which the defendant held in a limited partnership, was no more than an unsubstantiated assertion which was not sufficient to defeat the motion (see, Ihmels v Kahn, 126 A.D.2d 701). Moreover, defendant has failed to allege, or establish, that he followed the detailed set of procedures which were required by the partnership agreement before a transfer of an interest in the partnership could be effectuated. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gray v. Canalizo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1993
199 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Gray v. Canalizo

Case Details

Full title:HARRISON GRAY, Appellant, v. RICHARD CANALIZO, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 27, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
608 N.Y.S.2d 103