Daniel Zuckerman, a minor, and Elaine, his mother, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Joseph Antenucci and Dr. Jose Pena. Although the summons did not state that the two defendants were partners, the undisputed evidence at the trial established that this was their relationship and that the alleged acts of malpractice were done in the course of partnership business. The jury returned a verdict finding that Dr. Pena was guilty of malpractice but that Dr. Antenucci was not guilty of malpractice. The amount of the verdict was $4 million. Antenucci contended that he cannot be held liable on a partnership theory for the act of his partner. Is he correct? [Zuckerman v. Antenucci, 748 N.Y.S.2d 578 (A.D.)]
Answer to relevant QuestionsThomas Bartomeli decided to leave his employment to join his brother Raymond full-time in a small construction company. The brothers each contributed individual assets to the company and worked together to acquire equipment ...Mason and Phyllis Ledbetter operated a business in Northbrook, Illinois, as a partnership called Ledbetters’ Nurseries that specialized in the sale of garden lilies. The grounds of the nurseries were planted with numerous ...Don Mason and Beth Daley were managers and members of Pacific Beach Developers, LLC (PBD), a start-up real estate development company focusing on rehabilitating older properties for increased rental values and possible ...Graham and Black were each 50 percent shareholders of a building supply business. When Graham filed a petition to dissolve the corporation under RMBCA §14.30, the court appointed a custodian with full powers to run the ...On August 19, 1980, Joan Ioviero injured her hand when she slipped and fell while leaving the dining room at the Hotel Excelsior in Venice, Italy. This hotel was owned by an Italian corporation, Cigahotels, S.p.A. (The ...
Post your question