Stone v. Stone
| Decision Date | 18 March 1985 |
| Citation | 486 N.Y.S.2d 358,109 A.D.2d 834 |
| Parties | Richard STONE, Respondent-Appellant, v. Norman STONE, et al., Appellants-Respondents (and a second action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Anderson, Banks, Moore & Hollis, Mount Kisco (Maurice F. Curran and Gregory Keefe, White Plains, of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Aronwald & Pykett, White Plains (Daniel J. Pykett, White Plains, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and TITONE, LAZER and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, for an accounting of a purported partnership, and for damages, (1) defendants appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 30, 1983, as, among other things, (a) found that the business relationship between plaintiff Richard Stone and defendant Norman Stone was a partnership, except that the business activities of the parties were conducted in the form of corporations prior to August 27, 1976; (b) found that certain promissory notes executed by plaintiff Richard Stone and defendant Norman Stone, and certain trademarks, are assets subject to division pursuant to the parties' agreement of August 27, 1976, that plaintiff is entitled to an accounting from defendant Norman Stone with respect to these assets, and that plaintiff is entitled to a credit in the final accounting of one-half of $179,616.85, the amount by which the total sum of defendant Norman Stone's notes exceeded the total sum of plaintiff Richard Stone's notes; and (c) found that $1,000,000 worth of "cabinet inventory" was an asset to be divided by the parties; and (2) plaintiff cross appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the same interlocutory judgment as (a) determined that defendant Norman Stone need not account to plaintiff for two contracts associated with the parties' business enterprise in Taiwan inasmuch as plaintiff had no interest in those contracts; and (b) allegedly miscalculated the amount of the promissory notes executed by defendant Norman Stone, and omitted one promissory note from such computation.
Interlocutory judgment modified, on the facts, by (1) striking the figure "$179,616.85" from the fourth decretal paragraph thereof, and substituting therefor the figure "$178,587.35"; (2) striking the figure "$372,505.71" in subdivision (b) of the fifth decretal paragraph and substituting therefor the figure "$372,476.21"; (3) striking the figure "$1,000,000" from subdivision (e) of the fifth decretal paragraph; (4) striking the words "one-million dollar" from the sixth decretal paragraph; (5) striking the words "the Apollo Plastics contract, which was validly assigned and transferred to Norman Stone, and any matters limited thereto" from the seventh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Stone
...decision by requiring the debtor to account for other partnership assets as well, and otherwise affirmed Justice Buell's decision. Stone v. Stone, 109 A.D.2d 834, 486 N.Y.S.2d 358. The debtor appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals which dismissed the appeal sua 5. Pursuant to Justi......
-
In re Stone
...and accounting were ordered. Stone v. Stone, Nos. 7141/79 & 11987/80 (Sup.Ct. June 24, 1983), aff'd as modified, 109 A.D. 2d 834, 486 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dep't), appeal dismissed, 65 N.Y.2d 1053, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1061, 484 N.E.2d 1059 (1985). Following appeal, the matter was returned to the trial ......
-
Top Tile Ltd. v. Maslow
...in a prior action brought by him, inter alia, against his brother, the director of the plaintiff corporations (see, Stone v. Stone, 109 A.D.2d 834, 486 N.Y.S.2d 358, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 1053, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1061, 484 N.E.2d 1059). Thus, he is barred from relitigating these issues (see,......
-
Stone v. Curran
...in Federal Court. A Referee had been appointed to conduct an accounting for the dissolution of the partnership (see, Stone v. Stone, 109 A.D.2d 834, 486 N.Y.S.2d 358). The Referee's report was confirmed by order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, and, upon th......