You are here: / / LIABILITY UNDER CONTRACT CAN ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRIVITY WHERE A PARTY...

LIABILITY UNDER CONTRACT CAN ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRIVITY WHERE A PARTY IS A JOINT VENTURER OR PARTNER WITH A SIGNATORY TO THE CONTRACT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant Rock Solid was in a joint venture with defendant Catamount at the time Catamount entered a contract with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought specific performance of the contract. Supreme Court had dismissed the action against Rock Solid finding that Rock Solid was not in privity of contract with plaintiffs. However, because plaintiffs alleged Rock Solid and Catamount were joint venturers, and because Rock Solid did not address that issue in its motion for summary judgment, the motion should not have been granted:

Liability under a contract can arise in the absence of privity where it is established that the defendant is in a joint venture or partnership with a signatory to the contract (see Partnership Law § 28…). “A joint venture is an association of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise for profit, for which purpose they combine their property, money, effects, skill and knowledge” … . “The essential elements of a joint venture are an agreement manifesting the intent of the parties to be associated as joint venturers, a contribution by the coventurers to the joint undertaking (i.e., a combination of property, financial resources, effort, skill or knowledge), some degree of joint proprietorship and control over the enterprise; and a provision for the sharing of profits and losses” … .

Here, Supreme Court concluded that Rock Solid established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was not a party to the 2005 agreement … . … [T]he court failed to address whether Rock Solid satisfied its additional burden to refute plaintiffs' assertions in the complaint that Rock Solid was Catamount's joint venturer or partner. Alper Rest., Inc. v Catamount Dev. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 02509, 3rd Dept 3-31-16

CONTRACT LAW (LIABILITY UNDER CONTRACT CAN ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRIVITY WHERE A PARTY IS A JOINT VENTURER OR PARTNER WITH A SIGNATORY TO THE CONTRACT)/JOINT VENTURES (LIABILITY UNDER CONTRACT CAN ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRIVITY WHERE A PARTY IS A JOINT VENTURER OR PARTNER WITH A SIGNATORY TO THE CONTRACT)

You might also like
OIL-SPILL DAMAGES INVESTIGATOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S DECISION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION WERE MADE (THIRD DEPT).
Father, Who Had Not Been Informed of the Birth of His Child Until After the Child Was Adopted, Was Properly Awarded Custody of the Child
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED TIME FOR OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW THE NEGLECT PETITION AND CANCEL THE FACT-FINDING HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER ACKNOWLEDGED IMPREGNATING THE OLDEST CHILD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER WAS PROPER; HOWEVER THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHEN MOTHER LEARNED OF THE PREGNANCY AND WHETHER SHE KNEW WHO THE FATHER WAS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (B), WHEN DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION APPEARED WITHOUT COUNSEL AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WERE ENTITLED TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

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

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE PROVISION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DID NOT TOLL... DERIVATIVE SUIT AGAINST JP MORGAN CHASE STEMMING FROM SUBPRIME MORTGAGE-BACKED...