From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gustus v. William L. Crow Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 1989
149 A.D.2d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Summary

stating that partners generally cannot sue each other at law unless there is an accounting, prior settlement, or adjustment of the partnership affairs, but partner may maintain an action at law against a copartner when no complex accounting is required or when only one transaction is involved which is fully closed but unadjusted

Summary of this case from Drenis v. Haligiannis

Opinion

April 27, 1989


Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered on November 18, 1988, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements; and appeal from order of said court, entered on June 8, 1988, unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the order entered on November 18, 1988. No opinion.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross, Milonas and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Gustus v. William L. Crow Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 27, 1989
149 A.D.2d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

stating that partners generally cannot sue each other at law unless there is an accounting, prior settlement, or adjustment of the partnership affairs, but partner may maintain an action at law against a copartner when no complex accounting is required or when only one transaction is involved which is fully closed but unadjusted

Summary of this case from Drenis v. Haligiannis
Case details for

Gustus v. William L. Crow Construction Co.

Case Details

Full title:PETER GUSTUS, Respondent, v. WILLIAM L. CROW CONSTRUCTION CO. et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 27, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
539 N.Y.S.2d 496

Citing Cases

Solutia Inc. v. FMC Corp.

"While the general rule with respect to partnerships provides that partners cannot sue each other at law…

Mazzella v. Lathouris

The court held that the action would not lie because "there had been no adjustment of the amount between the…