You are here: / Claim for Undistributed Goodwill Re: Dissolved Partnership Dismissed

Search Results

/

Claim for Undistributed Goodwill Re: Dissolved Partnership Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined that Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment on a counterclaim which sought damages for undistributed goodwill of a partnership.  The partnership had been dissolved after the death of one of the partners and did not continue under the same structure. The Fourth Department explained:

Here, even assuming, arguendo, that the partners’ course of dealings or partnership agreement provided that goodwill is a distributable asset of the partnership, we conclude that defendants met their initial burden on that part of the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent it sought damages for undistributed goodwill.  Indeed, defendants established that there is no goodwill to distribute because the partnership has been dissolved and no longer exists.  In the circumstances presented here, it is incomprehensible that the partnership’s goodwill could survive the demise of the partnership, and the Court of Appeals decision in Dawson does not suggest otherwise.  In Dawson, although the Court of Appeals indicated that a dissolving partnership may have distributable goodwill, the partnership in that case was dissolved but was immediately reformed with the same partners, minus one, with the same firm name, using the same offices and servicing the same clients. Thus, in essence, the partnership was dissolved in name only. Here, in contrast, the same partnership did not reform after dissolution. Instead, two entirely new partnerships were formed.  Thus, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to the existence of goodwill after the dissolution of the partnership… .  Moore… v Johnson…, 744, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/ ,

Reference to Old Offense that Was Dismissed Okay in “Mental Abnormality/Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding

The Fourth Department determined that evidence of a 1991 offense that was dismissed with the record sealed was admissible in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 “dangerous sex offender” proceeding to determined whether defendant had a mental abnormality:

Evidence of prior crimes is commonly admissible in article 10 proceedings because it is probative of whether a designated felony was sexually motivated and whether a respondent has a mental abnormality…, and evidence of uncharged crimes likewise is admissible in article 10 proceedings because “Mental Hygiene Law article 10 does not limit the proof to acts that resulted in criminal convictions when considering the issue of mental abnormality”… . Matter of State of New York v Schraenkler,, 657, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/ , ,

References to Fingerprint Evidence Processed by Non-testifying Technician Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by latent fingerprint evidence processed by a technician who did not testify, the Fourth Department explained:

The technician who processed and photographed the fingerprint did not compare the latent print to the fingerprints of defendant or any other suspect. Thus, the technician’s findings were not testimonial because the latent fingerprint, “standing alone, shed[s] no light on the guilt of the accused in the absence of an expert’s opinion that the [latent fingerprint] match[es] a known sample”… .Moreover, the analyst who determined that the latent print matched one of defendant’s fingerprints in fact testified at trial and was available for cross-examination.    Therefore, defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him was not violated… .  People v Jackson, 645, 4th Dept 7-5-13

TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY

 

/ ,

Affidavit Stating that Third Party Confessed to Murder Required a Hearing Pursuant to a Motion to Vacate the Judgment of Conviction Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that a hearing should be held on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence.  The evidence was an affidavit from a person to whom a third person is alleged to have confessed to the murder.  The Fourth Department determined the hearsay statement could be considered as a basis for the 440 motion because it met the criteria of a statement against penal interest and, although there was no showing the declarant was unavailable (a criterium for admissibility under this hearsay exception), it was reasonable to assume the declarant would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify (thereby becoming unavailable).

We agree with defendant that where, as here, the declarations exculpate the defendant, they “are subject to a more lenient standard, and will be found ‘sufficient if [the supportive evidence] establish[es] a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true’ ”…. That is because “ ‘[d]epriving a defendant of the opportunity to offer into evidence [at trial] another person’s admission to the crime with which he or she has been charged, even though that admission may . . . be offered [only] as a hearsay statement, may deny a defendant his or her fundamental right to present a defense’ ” ….  Although the People contend that there is no evidence that the third party is unavailable, we conclude that, inasmuch as the statements attributed to the third party implicate him in a murder, there is a likelihood that, if called to testify at a trial, he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and thus become unavailable … .  People v McFarland, 729, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/ ,

Evidence Insufficient to Support Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree—No One In Line of Fire

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree in a shooting case where there was no evidence anyone was near the line of fire:

“A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct [that] creates a grave risk of death to another person” (Penal Law § 120.25). The evidence at trial established only that defendant stood on a street corner and fired up to five shots from a handgun. The People “presented no evidence that any person . . . ‘was in or near the line of fire’ ” so as to create a grave risk of death to any such person… .  People v Stanley, 757, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/ ,

Statement Correctly Admitted as Dying Declaration

In affirming the conviction, the Fourth Department held that a statement was correctly admitted as a dying declaration:

[The trial court admitted] as a dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule the testimony of a prosecution witness that, after being shot in the inner thigh, the victim stated, “I got robbed” and “I got shot.”    The People presented evidence establishing that, when the witness arrived at the scene, the victim was bleeding heavily from a femoral artery wound, his clothes were soaked in blood from the waist down, and he was inhaling and exhaling very hard.  The victim stated to the witness, “I’m gonna die, I’m gonna die”; he then became totally unresponsive and, shortly thereafter, he died. Thus, we conclude that the court properly determined that the victim’s statements were made with “a sense of impending death, with no hope of recovery” …  .  People v Elder, 713, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/ ,

Valid Waiver of Appeal Did Not Encompass Challenge to Severity of Sentence in this Case

The Fourth Department noted that a valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass a challenge to the severity of the sentence when the defendant was not advised of the potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of incarceration.  The court, however, concluded the sentence was not unduly harsh or severe. People v Virgil, 783, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/

Suppression of Evidence Reversed—Search of Interconnected Rooms Did Not Violate Terms of Search Warrant

The Fourth Department reversed County Court’s suppression ruling.  The Fourth Department determined that a search warrant for “a business store front style building…” allowed the officers to search a series of inter-connected rooms behind the storefront area:

We agree with the People that the warrant sufficiently described the premises to be searched …. Although “a warrant to search a subunit of a multiple occupancy structure is void if it fails to describe the subunit to be searched and . . . describes [only] the larger structure” …, here the series of interconnected rooms were not “subunits,” but were instead part of the single rental unit ….  People v Cook, 691, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/

All But Rape First Charges Were Time-Barred—Different Statute of Limitations for Rape First

The Fourth Department determined all charges but the Rape in the First Degree charge had to be dismissed as time-barred.  A change in the statute of limitations for Rape First applied to all such charges not time-barred at the time of the statutory change:

In 2002, when the crimes were committed, the statute of limitations for the charged offenses was five years (see CPL 30.10 former [2] [b]).  Because he was not charged until more than seven years later, defendant raised a facially viable statute of limitations defense, and the burden thus shifted to the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable  We conclude that the People satisfied their burden with respect to the charge of rape in the first degree.  As the People correctly contend, the legislature amended CPL 30.10 in 2006 so as to abolish the statute of limitations for four sex offenses, including rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree (see L 2006, ch 3, § 1).  The amendment applied not only to crimes committed after its effective date of June 23, 2006, but also to offenses that were not yet time-barred (see L 2006, ch 3, § 5 [a]).  People v Burroughs, 690, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

/ ,

Defendant Was Lawfully Seized by Police Under these Facts

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, finding that the defendant was not unlawfully seized under the following facts:

At the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that he stopped defendant because defendant was riding the motorbike in the road without a helmet.  When the officer asked defendant whether he had any identification, defendant answered, “no,” and took a step back, whereupon the officer reached toward defendant in an attempt to frisk him.  Before the officer could detain him, however, defendant ran away and, during his flight, punched another officer who had joined in the pursuit. Defendant was soon apprehended and found to be in possession of a loaded firearm, 20 bags of marihuana, and more than $2,000 in cash. People v Bradley, 685, 4th Dept 7-5-13

STREET STOPS, SEARCH AND SEIZURE

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