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.)]