Kramer v. Salm, No. 1

CourtNew York City Municipal Court
Writing for the CourtWALTER R. HART
Citation236 N.Y.S.2d 364
PartiesIrving M. KRAMER, Plaintiff, v. Abraham A. SALM, Defendant. (Action) Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Part I. Abraham A. SALM, Plaintiff, v. Irving M. KRAMER, Defendant. (Action) Municipal Court of City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, First District
Docket NumberNo. 2,No. 1
Decision Date19 November 1962

Page 364

236 N.Y.S.2d 364
Irving M. KRAMER, Plaintiff,
v.
Abraham A. SALM, Defendant.
(Action No. 1.)
Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Part I.
Abraham A. SALM, Plaintiff,
v.
Irving M. KRAMER, Defendant.
(Action No. 2.)
Municipal Court of City of New York, Borough of Manhattan,
First District.
Nov. 19, 1962.

Page 365

Goldstein & Goldstein, Monticello, for plaintiff.

Emanuel Sobel, New York City, for defendant.

WALTER R. HART, Justice.

On a motion to consolidate the two above entitled actions, the court at a conference held on April 2, 1962 brought about a stipulation of settlement which was entered on the record. The Supreme Court action (Action No. 1) had been brought for an accounting between the parties, former partners in the practice of law. By the terms of the stipulation it was agreed, inter alia, that defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $12,500 in three instalments have in fact been paid. It was agreed that at the time of the making of the first instalment of $6250 general releases would be exchanged between the parties excepting therefrom the balance due under the stipulation. It was further agreed that with respect to a certificate for 100 shares of Ryder Systems Corporation stock in the joint names of the parties which was in defendant's possession, defendant would sign any and all necessary papers to cause new certificates to be issued for 50 shares to each of the parties. At the time the stipulation was entered into each of the parties had in his possession certain files or cases in the firm name. It was agreed that with respect to these files each party was to retain same in his possession; that the other party was to sign stipulations of substitution and that any fees accruing with respect to said cases would belong to the party who had retained the file. Apparently the files had been divided according to the original sources of the retention of the firm. It was further agreed that the partnership was deemed dissolved as of December 31, 1961.

Plaintiff now moves for an order (1) directing the defendant to comply with the stipulation by delivering the stock referred to so that same can be properly transferrred as provided for in the stipulation; (2) correct and amend the stipulation so as to clarify the true intention of the parties by providing that the liabilities of the partnership were assumed by defendant; and (3) for an order directing that defendant pay all of the obligations of the partnership and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT