Levy v. Nassau Queens Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · 1984 · Corporations
102 A.D.2d 845 (1984)
Updated
CorporationsPartnershipsPartnership expulsionBad faith terminationpartnership agreementexpulsiontermination clauseage 70

Facts

Dr. Sidney Levy practiced medicine as a partner in the defendant Nassau Queens Medical Group. Under the partnership agreement, a partner could be terminated by majority vote if he had reached age 70, and Levy was expelled by majority vote of the partnership executive committee because he was over 70. Plaintiffs alleged the termination was made in bad faith because other persons over 70 were not expelled and because the real reason was Levy's criticisms of partnership decisions. Plaintiffs sought damages for breach of the partnership agreement and prima facie tort.

Issue

Whether plaintiffs stated a cause of action for breach of contract or prima facie tort by alleging that a partnership invoked a contractual age-based termination clause in bad faith because it selectively enforced the clause and actually sought to remove a partner for criticizing partnership decisions.

Rule

Where a partnership agreement provides a simple, practical, and speedy method of separating a partner from the partnership, a court may not frustrate that purpose in the absence of undue penalty or unjust forfeiture. Although bad faith may be actionable, there must be some showing that the partnership acted from a desire to gain a business or property advantage for the remaining partners; mere policy disagreements do not constitute bad faith because partners may choose with whom they wish to be associated.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Harbor West Architects, a partnership in Seattle, has an agreement allowing removal by majority vote of any partner who has reached age 68. The partners vote out Nina Patel, age 71, after months of arguments in which she publicly criticized the firm's decision to open a new office in Boise. Nina sues, alleging bad faith because the firm really wanted to silence her opposition.

Which is the strongest assessment of Nina's claim?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a partnership may use a contractual age-based termination clause designed to provide a simple, practical, and speedy means of separation. Allegations that the real reason was the partner's criticism of partnership decisions show only policy disagreement, which is not actionable bad faith. Actionable bad faith requires some showing that the remaining partners sought a business or property advantage. (Derived from Levy v. Nassau Queens Medical Group (1984).)