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
THE JUDGE’S POLICY OF NOT LETTING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INTO THE COURTROOM DURING TESTIMONY HAD THE UNINTENDED EFFECT OF EXCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP) ​
COURT RECORDS RELATED TO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE COMMITMENT AND RETENTION OF DANGEROUS MENTALLY ILL ACQUITTEES ARE NOT CLINICAL RECORDS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE AUTOMATIC SEALING REQUIREMENT IN THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CT APP).
Absent a Clear Due Process Violation, the Correct Remedy for Failure to Explain Why a Witness Requested by the Inmate Did Not Testify (a Rule Violation) Is a New Hearing, Not Expungement
ETHICAL VIOLATION CANNOT BE USED AS A SWORD TO AVOID PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEE; BECAUSE TRIAL PREPARATION NOT NECESSARY, LOWER ATTORNEY’S-FEE PERCENTAGE APPLIED.
Standing Criteria for Petitioning for Review of Municipal Environmental Rulings Clarified; The Fact that Many People, in Addition to Petitioner, Will Suffer the Same Adverse Effects as Petitioner, Did Not Negate Petitioner’s Standing
RUNNING A DMV DATABASE SEARCH FOR A VEHICLE’S PLATE NUMBER IS NOT A SEARCH, THEREFORE THE DMV CHECK CAN BE RUN WITHOUT ANY ARTICULABLE REASON FOR STOPPING A VEHICLE.
THE LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE ASSAILANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE WAS NOT AN INTRUDER AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE, THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTED (CT APP).
In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period

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