O'Brien v. Birnbaum
This text of 251 A.D. 895 (O'Brien v. Birnbaum) 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.
Opinion
In an action in equity for an accounting of an alleged joint venture between the parties, both of whom are attorneys and counselors at law, interlocutory judgment in favor of the plaintiff reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Inconsistent findings will be reversed and new findings made, (a) The evidence is wholly insufficient in law to support the fundamental finding, made by the learned trial court, that the alleged agreement of joint venture was made (Summa v. Masterson, 215 App. Div. 159); (b) assuming, however, that the pleaded agreement was actually made, it was not legally binding on the parties thereto because as to the possible future business to be obtained by the defendant, [896]*896in which plaintiff was to share, the agreement was wholly vague, uncertain and indefinite and, therefore, unenforeible. (United Press v. New York Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406, 410; Emerson Phonograph Co., Inc., v. Waterson, 183 App. Div. 386; affd., 228 N. Y. 583; Wallach v. Mendelson, 115 Misc. 499.) Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., not voting. Settle order on notice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
251 A.D. 895, 297 N.Y.S. 255, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-birnbaum-nyappdiv-1937.