Reiner v. Townley Updike

Full title: JOHN P. REINER et al., Appellants, v. TOWNLEY UPDIKE et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 21, 1997

243 A.D.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

663 N.Y.S.2d 168

Opinion

October 21, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).

The clause in issue is not anticompetitive in providing that a withdrawing partner is entitled to 10% of the amount that would be due a deceased or retiring partner, since it does so without reference to whether or not the withdrawing partner does work for partnership's former clients or otherwise competes with the partnership ( see, Hackett v. Milbank Tweed, Hadley McCloy, 86 N.Y.2d 146, 156; Levy v. Baumeister, 170 A.D.2d 386). The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in denying immediate payment to plaintiff Reiner of his capital account balance in view of the substantial counterclaims and setoffs interposed by defendant based upon Reiner's alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to the partnership before his withdrawal.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.