From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patel v. Patel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 8, 1993
192 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

April 8, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.).


This litigation involves a newsstand leased by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to Ancorp National Services, Inc., and subleased on October 9, 1981 to defendant, Raman Patel, for a period of ten years. The sublease does not contain the name of plaintiff, Shanker Patel, and there is no written partnership agreement to support plaintiff's claim that he and defendant entered into a partnership to operate the subject newsstand. The existence of a "business certificate for partners" signed by defendant, however, is some evidence of a partnership. In addition, the record establishes that Federal partnership income tax returns were jointly filed in certain years by plaintiff and defendant, and that plaintiff made various rental payments to Ancorp National Services, Inc.

Nevertheless, the documentary evidence is insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, the existence of a partnership and, given the factual dispute between the parties on this issue, the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff involved impermissible issue determination, rather than issue finding (see, Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395 ). In this context, we note that a partnership may be dissolved at any time by any partner (Shandell v Katz, 95 A.D.2d 742, 743) and that, while documents contained in the record may offer some evidence with respect to certain periods, they are not dispositive of all periods.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Patel v. Patel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 8, 1993
192 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Patel v. Patel

Case Details

Full title:SHANKER PATEL, Respondent, v. RAMAN PATEL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 8, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
596 N.Y.S.2d 30

Citing Cases

Hammond v. Smith

Contrary to defendant's contention, the absence of other evidence corroborating that plaintiff in fact…

Acinapura v. Natalizia, No. 1999-2007 (2003)

Id. Even assuming, arguendo, that that were true, it is generally well-recognized that business relationships…