Malmeth v. Schneider

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malmeth v. Schneider

18 A.D.2d 1030, 238 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4091

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1030 (Malmeth v. Schneider) 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

Malmeth v. Schneider, 18 A.D.2d 1030, 238 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages fi>r defendant’s alleged wrongful dissolution of his partnership with the plaintiff; the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 18, 1962, which denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the complaint (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 112). (See 36 Mise 2d 966 for opinion of the court.) Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion for judgment on the pleadings granted; and complaint dismissed. The unambiguous language of the partnership agreement provides for the continuing performance by the parties so long as the agreement shall be in effect. However, the agreement contains no provision for its duration. Under: such circumstances, the agreement created a partnership at will which might be¡ dissolved at any time by the express will of either partner without violation of the agreement (Partnership Law, § 62, subd. 1, par. [b]). Ughetta, Acting R. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages fi>r defendant’s alleged wrongful dissolution of his partnership with the plaintiff; the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 18, 1962, which denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the complaint (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 112). (See 36 Mise 2d 966 for opinion of the court.) Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion for judgment on the pleadings granted; and complaint dismissed. The unambiguous language of the partnership agreement provides for the continuing performance by the parties so long as the agreement shall be in effect. However, the agreement contains no provision for its duration. Under: such circumstances, the agreement created a partnership at will which might be¡ dissolved at any time by the express will of either partner without violation of the agreement (Partnership Law, § 62, subd. 1, par. [b]). Ughetta, Acting R. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1030, 238 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malmeth-v-schneider-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack