Legal Opinion

Gerstein v. Teitelbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 22, 1948PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Though it is claimed that the partnership was terminable at will, plaintiff does not allege that the partnership was dissolved at his election. The bringing of an action for dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting does not constitute an election on the part of plaintiff to exercise his right to dissolve the partnership notwithstanding that he had such right to dissolve. There must be a notice of election to terminate or a mutual agreement. (Brady v. Powers, 112 App. Div. 845, 850, mod. 188 N. Y. 626; Klenoff v. Goodstein, 268 App. Div. 510, 511.)

The action brought by plaintiff is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brady v. PowersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  2. Klenoff v. GoodsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
  3. Brady v. . PowersNew York Court of Appeals · 1907

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Napoli v. DomnitchNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Posner v. PosnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  3. Jones v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API