Legal Opinion

Roedel v. Roedel

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1956PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert D. Hamm, J.

This is a motion to cancel a notice of pendency of action.

The plaintiff and defendant, wife and husband respectively, were partners in the conduct of a dance studio in the city of Albany. The plaintiff seeks an accounting. The premises 33 Elk Street, Albany, were formerly used by the partners as their studio. The title is in the sole name of the defendant. The plaintiff has filed a lis pendens against 33 Elk Street.

Section 52 of the Partnership Law states: “A partner’s interest in the partnership is his share of the profits and surplus and the same is personal property.”

In Rosen v. Rosen (126…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Keating v. HammersteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  2. Siegel v. SilverstoneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
  3. Rosen v. RosenNew York Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Weisinger v. RaeNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Arcaro v. ArcaroNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Roedel v. RoedelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API