Case Name: CUKOR v. ROTHMAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-02-18
Citations: 140 N.Y.S. 113
Docket Number: 
Parties: CUKOR v. ROTHMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 140
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
CUKOR v. ROTHMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
February 18, 1913.)
Courts (§ 188 )—Jurisdiction—City Court.
An action against defendant for damages which he undertook to pay for his breach of a contract by a premature dissolution of a partnership, and a failure of the defendant to carry out his personal covenants, was an action at law of which the City Court of the city of New York had jurisdiction, though it was based on a partnership contract.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 437-468; Dec. Dig. § 188.*]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by Victor F. Cukor against Henry A. Rothman. From an order (139 N. Y. Supp. 1015) granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action on a contract of partnership, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued January term, 1913, before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and PAGE, JJ.
Henry 'Kuntz, of New York City (Abraham P. Wilkes, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Abraham Landau, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § nttmbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907-to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
While the plaintiff's cause of action is based upon a partnership contract, the breach alleged is the premature dissolution of the partnership, and the failure of the defendant to carry out his personal covenants under the agreement, and the damages claimed are amounts which the defendant personally undertook to pay. The action is therefore an action at law of which the City Court had jurisdiction.
The order is therefore reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied without costs.