Millet v. Slocum
| Decision Date | 25 June 1958 |
| Citation | 177 N.Y.S.2d 716,5 N.Y.2d 734 |
| Parties | , 152 N.E.2d 672 J. Bradford MILLET, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Millard M. SLOCUM et al., a co-partnership, d/b/a Slocum-Dickson Clinic, Dependants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 4 A.D.2d 528, 167 N.Y.S.2d 136.
Doctor, who had been expelled from partnership of physicians practicing group medicine in city, brought action against the other members of the partnership for declaration with respect to his right to practice medicine and surgery within two cities and environs, and the other members of the partnership filed a counterclaim asking that the doctor be enjoined from practicing medicine in the two cities and environs in accordance with the terms of a restrictive covenant.
The Oneida Equity Term, Henry A. Hudson, J., entered judgment that the restrictive covenant was void as against public policy and that expulsion of the doctor was unwarranted and constituted a breach of contract, and denied the prayer for injunction, and all parties appealed.
The Appellate Division, McCurn, P. J., modified and affirmed the judgment and held that the restrictive covenant was not void, but that expulsion of doctor had been wrongful and constituted such a breach of partnership agreement as to preclude the other members of the partnership from obtaining equitable relief of injunction to enforce the restrictive covenant.
The other members of the partnership appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the restrictive covenant was valid, and that the other members of the partnership properly exercised their right to terminate the doctor's membership in the partnership, and that the other members of the partnership were entitled to enforcement at law of contract provisions as to accounts receivable.
Evans, Pirnie & Burdick, Utica (Hugh R. Jones and Arthur W. Evans, Utica, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
Williams & Williams, Utica (Roger H. Williams and Salvador J. Capecelatro, Utica, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Institute of Chemical Engineers v. Reber-Friel Co.
... ... Bates Chevrolet, supra, 13 A.D.2d 27, 213 N.Y.S.2d 577. The same factor has been present and noted in other contexts as well. Thus, in Millet v. Slocum, 4 A.D.2d 528, 167 N.Y.S.2d 136 (4th Dep't. 1957), aff'd, 5 N.Y.2d 734, 177 N.Y.S.2d 716, 152 N.E.2d 672 (1958), the court upheld a ... ...
-
Doe v. Roe
...13 N.Y.2d 644, 240 N.Y.S.2d 759, 191 N.E.2d 290; Millet v. Slocum, 4 A.D.2d 528, 167 N.Y.S.2d 136, aff'd without opn., 5 N.Y.2d 734, 177 N.Y.S.2d 716, 152 N.E.2d 672; Lynch v. Bailey, 300 N.Y. 615, 90 N.E.2d 484; Clark Paper & Manufacturing Co. v. Stenacher, 236 N.Y. 312, 140 N.E. The contr......
-
MacDonald v. Clinger
...13 N.Y.2d 644, 240 N.Y.S.2d 759, 191 N.E.2d 290; Millet v. Slocum, 4 A.D.2d 528, 167 N.Y.S.2d 136, affd. without opn. 5 N.Y.2d 734, 177 N.Y.S.2d 716, 152 N.E.2d 672; Lynch v. Bailey, 300 N.Y. 615, 90 N.E.2d 484; Clark Paper & Mfg. Co. v. Stenacher, 236 N.Y. 312, 140 N.E. 708). 93 Misc.2d at......
-
Ehrlich v. Howe
... ... A partnership agreement may provide for the expulsion of partners under prescribed conditions, but such provisions are strictly applied. Millet v. Slocum, 4 A.D.2d 528, 532, 167 N.Y.S.2d 136 (4th Dept.1957) (expulsion of partner that was not carried out in strict conformity with terms of ... ...