 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Joachim v. Flanzig11/6/2003
e Partnership. The Partnership share was to be divided: 45% to Joachim, 45% to Flanzig and 10% into escrow.
If timely objection to the proposed distribution was received, the funds would be distributed as follows:
a. Reimbursement of disbursements incurred by the Partnership to be distributed as follows: 45% to Joachim, 45% to Flanzig and 10% in escrow;
b. reimbursement of disbursements to the Successor Firm the represented the client when the action resolved;
c. client's share;
d. co-counsel fee;
e. legal fee to paid out as follows: 40% to the Successor Firm that represented the client when the action was resolved; 20% to Edward Joachim; 20% to Sheldon Flanzig and 20% in escrow.
A hearing would then be held before a Special Referee to determine the objections so that the remained of the legal fee and adjustments to disbursements could be made.
The escrow is being held pending determination of a claim by Steven Frommer that he was a 10% partner in Joachim & Flanzig. The February, 2003 Stipulation does not provide a method for the distribution of the escrow if it is ultimately determined that Steven Frommer was not a 10% partner in the Partnership.
Distributions pursuant to the February, 2003 Stipulation have been made. However, Joachim has recently refused to make any distribution to Flanzig pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation. Joachim asserts that, as of December 31, 2001, the balance in his capital account exceeded the balance in Flanzig's capital account by approximately $130,000.00. Joachim asserts that he is not required to distribute any money to Flanzig pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation until the difference in the capital accounts has been equalized.
Joachim asserts that, pursuant to Partnership Law ยง71(b), he is entitled to receive this amount before any distributions are made to Flanzig pursuant to the terms of the February, 2003 Stipulation.
The primary asset of the Partnership was its cases. The remaining assets, consisting of furniture, law library and equipment, was of little monetary value and has been satisfactorily divided between the Successor Firms. The debts of the Partnership owed to third-parties was not substantial. These sums have been paid either by the Partnership or the Successor Firms and are now subject to an accounting pending before Special Referee Frank Schellace.
DISCUSSION
A Stipulation is a contract which will be enforced in accordance with its terms.
McKenzie v. Vintage Hallmark, PLC, 302 A.D.2d 503 (2nd Dept., 2003); and Charter Realty & Development Corp. v. New Roc Assocs., L.P., 293 A.D.2d 438 (2nd Dept., 2002).
An agreement that is clear and unequivocal shall be enforced in accordance with its terms. The interpretation of a clear and unequivocal contract is a matter of law for the Court. Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 562 (2002); and Russack v. Weinstein, 291 A.D.2d 439 (2nd Dept., 2002).
The Court is to determine the intent of the parties from the language of the agreements. Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc., supra; W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157 (1990); and Katina, Inc. v. Famiglietti, 306 A.D.2d 440 (2nd Dept., 2003). The terms of the contract are to be interpreted in accordance with their plain meaning. Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc., supra; and Tikotzky v. New York City Transit Auth., 286 A.D.2d 493 (2nd Dept., 2001). The Court is to give "...practical interpretation to the language employed and the parties' reasonable expectations." Del Vecchio v. Cohen, 288 A.D.2d 426, 427 (2nd Dept., 2001), q
Page 1 2 3 4 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|