Bereck v. Meyer

222 A.D.2d 243, 635 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12709
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 7, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 243 (Bereck v. Meyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bereck v. Meyer, 222 A.D.2d 243, 635 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered February 17, 1995, which, upon a CPLR 3211 (c) conversion of defendants’ motion to dismiss this action for a partnership accounting as barred by [244]*244the Statute of Frauds, granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of granting plaintiff leave to amend his complaint so as to plead a cause of action for breach of contract, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in the absence of evidence that plaintiff, who seeks to establish a partnership interest in an enterprise that was in form a corporation, contributed to the capital of this alleged partnership, was to share in its losses, or exercised joint control over its day-to-day operations (see, Greenberg v Ladicorbic, 200 AD2d 465, Iv denied 83 NY2d 757; Blaustein v Lazar Borck & Mensch, 161 AD2d 507, 508). However, issues of fact were raised as to whether there was an agreement to compensate plaintiff, through a percentage of the profits or otherwise, for his efforts in establishing the enterprise. Accordingly, we grant plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to state a cause of action for breach of contract (see, Ramirez v Goldberg, 82 AD2d 850). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kaur v. Royal Arcadia Palace, Inc.
643 F. Supp. 2d 276 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Ellis v. Abbey & Ellis
271 A.D.2d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
National Union Fire Insurance v. Bodek
270 A.D.2d 139 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 243, 635 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bereck-v-meyer-nyappdiv-1995.