Dean v. John B. Pike & Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dean v. John B. Pike & Son, Inc.

145 A.D.2d 942, 536 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13986

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 942 (Dean v. John B. Pike & Son, Inc.) 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

Dean v. John B. Pike & Son, Inc., 145 A.D.2d 942, 536 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without [943]*943costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in refusing to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for interest in excess of the statutory rate. The court has the discretionary power to fix the rate of interest only where equitable relief is sought (CPLR 5001 [a]; Bosco v Alicino, 37 AD2d 552). In this case, plaintiff claimed that he and defendant John B. Pike & Son were engaged in a joint venture and, as a result, that he was entitled to equitable relief in the nature of an accounting. Plaintiff failed, however, to present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue in support of his claim. The mere fact that plaintiff was to receive a percentage of the net profits as compensation does not establish the existence of a joint venture (Kaminsky v Kahn, 20 NY2d 573, 582). We conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a right to equitable relief and that the order should be modified to dismiss the claim for interest in excess of the statutory rate.

In all other respects, we affirm the order and judgment for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, Boehm, J. (Appeals from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without [943]*943costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erred in refusing to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for interest in excess of the statutory rate. The court has the discretionary power to fix the rate of interest only where equitable relief is sought (CPLR 5001 [a]; Bosco v Alicino, 37 AD2d 552). In this case, plaintiff claimed that he and defendant John B. Pike & Son were engaged in a joint venture and, as a result, that he was entitled to equitable relief in the nature of an accounting. Plaintiff failed, however, to present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue in support of his claim. The mere fact that plaintiff was to receive a percentage of the net profits as compensation does not establish the existence of a joint venture (Kaminsky v Kahn, 20 NY2d 573, 582). We conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a right to equitable relief and that the order should be modified to dismiss the claim for interest in excess of the statutory rate.

In all other respects, we affirm the order and judgment for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court, Boehm, J. (Appeals from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 942, 536 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-v-john-b-pike-son-inc-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack