You are here: / / Oral Partnership Agreement Dissolvable at Will Because of Lack of Spec...
,

Oral Partnership Agreement Dissolvable at Will Because of Lack of Specificity

In finding that an oral partnership agreement was dissolvable at will because no “definite term” or “particular undertaking” was included, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, wrote:

…[W]e believe that [the] complaint lacks a fixed, express period of time during which the enterprise was expected to operate. Instead, the complaint alleges a flexible temporal framework: the parties were to solicit investments for an indefinite length of time; conduct an open-ended (possibly two-year) search for an unidentified business in an unknown business sector or industry; secure additional capital investments over the course of an unspecified period of time; and then purchase and operate the enterprise for an indeterminate duration (perhaps four to seven years) until a liquidity event would hopefully occur. Since the complaint does not set forth a specific or even a reasonably certain termination date, it does not satisfy the “definite term” element of [Partnership Law] section 62 (1) (b). * * *

Furthermore, when the entire scheme is considered, the alleged sequence of anticipated partnership events detailed in the complaint are too amorphous to meet the statutory “particular undertaking” standard for precluding unilateral dissolution of a partnership. The stages of the plan … were to: (1) raise money; (2) identify a business to buy; (3) raise more money to purchase the business; (4) “operate the business to increase its value”; (5) “achieve the liquidity event”; (6) “sell the business”; and (7) secure profit from the sale. But these objectives are fraught with uncertainty and are less definitive than the declarations referring to specific industries that have been found to be inadequate by other courts *  *  *.  In the absence of a definite term of duration or a particular undertaking to be achieved, the partnership agreement at issue, however well-intended, was dissolvable at will by either partner under Partnership Law § 62 (1) (b). Gelman v Buehler, 37, Ct.App. 3-26-13

 

 

You might also like
Even Though Probable Cause for a DWI Arrest Existed, the Arresting Officer Testified He Was Not Going to Arrest the Defendant Until He Found a Switchblade Knife During a Pat-Down Search—Therefore the Search Could Not Be Justified As a Search Incident to Arrest and the Switchblade Should Have Been Suppressed
THE DEFENDANT, PERSONALLY, MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROVERT THE PROSECUTION’S PREDICATE FELONY ALLLEGATIONS, AND TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PREDICATE FELONY SENTENCING SCHEME, EVEN WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL CONCEDES THE ISSUE; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).
THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S VACATION OF DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED; THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE “RELISHING THE INFLICTION OF EXTREME PAIN” ELEMENT (CT APP).
EVEN IF THE OFFICER WERE WRONG ABOUT WHETHER A NON-FUNCTIONING CENTER BRAKE LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE OFFICER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE; THEREFORE THE STOP WAS VALID AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
RECORDS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A POLICE OFFICER ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE EVEN IF THE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS REDACTED (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ANALYSIS OF DNA EVIDENCE USING THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL WAS ERROR, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR BECAUSE OF VIDEO EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIALLY CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO THE GUN FOUND BY THE POLICE; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ON WHETHER THE ADMISSION OF THE DNA EVIDENVE CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO THE GUN WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).
CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT.
THE POLICE MAY STOP A VEHICLE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE “COMMUNITY CARETAKING” FUNCTION IF THERE IS CAUSE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE IN THE VEHICLE NEEDS ASSISTANCE; THE QUICK OPENING AND CLOSING OF A PASSENGER DOOR WAS NOT ENOUGH (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Experts’ Failure to Address Proximate Cause Precluded Summary Judgment Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim