TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ramirez v. Goldberg

Joseph Ramirez v. Albert Goldberg, Individually and as a Partner of National-Tronics Co., Appellants-Respondents

Ramirez v. Goldberg, 73 A.D.2d 640 (1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 17, 1979
Citations
73 A.D.2d 640422 N.Y.S.2d 10161979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14461

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

— In an action, inter alia, to declare plaintiff a partner in *641 defendants’ businesses and for an accounting and a money judgment, defendants appeal and plaintiff cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 16, 1978, which determined, after a nonjury trial, that plaintiff was a partner and awarded him judgment in the principal sum of $45,000. Cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as not perfected in accordance with the rules of this court. Case remitted to Trial Term for findings of fact pursuant to CPLR 4213 and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The parties shall submit proposed findings of fact to the court within 15 days after service upon plaintiff by defendants of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Defendants shall serve a copy of the order within 15 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The trial court shall render its findings in accordance with CPLR 4213 (subd [b]) within 30 days after submission of the proposed findings of fact. On July 19, 1977, immediately upon completion of the lengthy trial of the complex issues in this action, the trial court returned the 135 trial exhibits to the parties. Nevertheless, the court’s decision, consisting of seven short paragraphs covering one and one-half pages, was not filed until October 26, 1978 (although it is dated September 18, 1977). The decision contains only one finding of fact — that the business operations grossed $1,740,000 in five years. The award of $45,000 to the plaintiff is thus a conclusion based on no stated facts. The record before us consists of four volumes. Manifestly, the challenged determination should not be reviewed by this court until the trial court has made findings of fact in accordance with its obligations under the statute. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1980: 11981: 119802026peak 1980 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ramirez v. Goldberg82 A.D.2d 850 (1981)
  2. Ramirez v. Goldberg77 A.D.2d 589 (1980)

Most recent

  1. Ramirez v. Goldberg82 A.D.2d 850 (1981)
  2. Ramirez v. Goldberg77 A.D.2d 589 (1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list