Blumberg v. Manuel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blumberg v. Manuel

233 A.D.2d 149, 649 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11490

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 149 (Blumberg v. Manuel) 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

Blumberg v. Manuel, 233 A.D.2d 149, 649 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about June 23, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs vague evidence failed to satisfy his obligation to show "customary indicia” of a partnership (M.I.F. Sec. Co. v Stamm & Co., 94 AD2d 211, 214, affd 60 NY2d 936). In particular, plaintiff made an insufficient showing as to the essential element of an agreement to share losses (see, Chanler v Roberts, 200 AD2d 489, 491, lv denied 84 NY2d 903), and also as to sharing in management decisions.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about June 23, 1995, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs vague evidence failed to satisfy his obligation to show "customary indicia” of a partnership (M.I.F. Sec. Co. v Stamm & Co., 94 AD2d 211, 214, affd 60 NY2d 936). In particular, plaintiff made an insufficient showing as to the essential element of an agreement to share losses (see, Chanler v Roberts, 200 AD2d 489, 491, lv denied 84 NY2d 903), and also as to sharing in management decisions.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 149, 649 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumberg-v-manuel-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack