You are here: / / Proceeds of Sale of Property After Dissolution of Partnership Not “Pro...

Proceeds of Sale of Property After Dissolution of Partnership Not “Profits”

The Second Department determined that the appreciation in the value of commercial real estate owned by a partnership after the date of dissolution did not constitute “profits” within the meaning of Partnership Law 73:

Partnership Law § 73 provides, in relevant part, “[W]hen any partner retires or dies, and the business is continued . . . he or his legal representative . . . shall receive as an ordinary creditor an amount equal to the value of his interest in the dissolved partnership with interest, or, at his option or at the option of his legal representative, in lieu of interest, the profits attributable to the use of his right in the property of the dissolved partnership.” * *

…[T]he Appellate Division, [4th] Department, held that the plaintiff’s share of the fair market value of a parcel of real property was fixed as of the date the partnership dissolved, and thus determined that the profits the plaintiff was entitled to in that case did not include increases in the value of real property after the date of dissolution. Here, since the partnership dissolved on April 12, 2000, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a share in the appreciation of partnership assets after that date… . Breidbart v Wiesenthal, 2013 NY Slip Op 05040, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
APPELLANT, A COUSIN, WAS NOT THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A PARENT AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, A PROPER RESPONDENT IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE/NEGLECT ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LOAN WAS ORALLY CONVERTED TO A GIFT BY DECEDENT, CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF A GIFT EXPLAINED.
THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
AN INFORMAL JUDICIAL ADMISSTION BY PLAINTIFF BANK’S FORMER COUNSEL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LOAN HAD BEEN MODIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
“Law of the Case” Does Not Bind Appellate Courts
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN THE LEAD VEHICLE, WAS NOT AT FAULT IN THE REAR-END COLLISION DOES NOT LEAD TO THE AUTOMATIC CONCLUSION THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE WAS AT FAULT; HERE THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY OIL ON THE ROADWAY; SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE REAR DRIVER AT FAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Question of Fact Whether Abutting Landowners Owned to the Centerline of the Roadway Bed, Relevant Law Explained
SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Parole Board Should Have Used Risk Assessment Instrument Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff Had Standing to Bring Foreclosure ...