§Why CasetextPricing

Geoffrey Gelman, Respondent,v.Antonio Buehler, Appellant.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. Haines v. City of New York

    41 N.Y.2d 769 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 91 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reasonable time" for performance of 1924 agreement in which city agreed to construct and maintain sewer system for village and town to prevent sewage from entering city's water supply was until city no longer needed or used the water supply

  2. Prince v. O'Brien

    234 A.D.2d 12 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses

    December 3, 1996. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira' Gammerman, J.), entered May 30, 1996, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated. Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ. The IAS Court properly rejected defendants' argument that the provision of the Statute of Frauds which bars enforcement of oral agreements which by their

  3. Harshman v. Pantaleoni

    294 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 8 times

    90309 May 9, 2002. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Meddaugh, J.), entered April 30, 2001 in Sullivan County, which, inter alia, partially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Hodgson Russ L.L.P., Albany (Deborah L. Kelly of counsel), for appellant. Meighan Necarsulmer, Mamaroneck (John Carter Rice of Rice Justice, Albany, of counsel), for respondents. Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and, Rose, JJ. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Rose, J. This action concerns a family

  4. Sanley Company v. Louis

    197 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sanley, this Court found that a partnership formed “for the purposes of acquiring, managing and reselling residential real estate,” with “no term of duration... set by the partners” was a partnership at will.

  5. Girard Bank v. Haley

    460 Pa. 237 (Pa. 1975)   Cited 26 times
    In Girard Bank v. Haley, 460 Pa. 237, 332 A.2d 443 (1975), the partners had entered into a written partnership agreement for the purpose of "the operation, management, cultivation, maintenance, [and] leasing for profit [of] a tract of land and the buildings and improvements thereon erected," in this case a piece of rental, residential property.

  6. Napoli v. Domnitch

    18 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)   Cited 33 times

    December 24, 1962 In an action to declare the dissolution of a partnership engaged in the building of apartment houses and their operation, in which defendants counter-claimed for the same and related relief on the ground of plaintiff's breach of the partnership agreement, the parties cross-appeal as follows from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 10, 1962, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment;

  7. Wahl v. Barnum

    116 N.Y. 87 (N.Y. 1889)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that settlement of a disputed claim is legal consideration, even if the claim lacked merit

  8. Hardin v. Robinson

    178 App. Div. 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)   Cited 14 times

    December 29, 1916. Elbridge L. Adams, for the appellants. Chester A. Jayne, for the respondents. PAGE, J.: The action was brought by the trustees under the last will and testament of Oscar Keen, deceased, for an accounting from the defendants for the proceeds of a certain joint adventure. The contested questions of fact were largely found in favor of the plaintiffs and are briefly stated as follows: In the month of January, 1907, Oscar Keen, Merle Middleton and George Frederick Keene associated themselves

  9. Fromm v. City of New York

    135 N.E. 956 (N.Y. 1922)

    Argued May 3, 1922 Decided May 31, 1922 John P. O'Brien, Corporation Counsel ( John F. O'Brien, Charles V. Nellany and Charles Blandy of counsel), for City of New York, appellant. Trabue Carswell and George D. Yeomans for Lindley M. Garrison, as receiver of the New York Municipal Railway Corporation and of the New York Consolidated Railroad Company, appellants. Arthur J. Stern for respondent. Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE

  10. Section 62 - Causes of dissolution

    N.Y. Partnership Law § 62   Cited 138 times

    Dissolution is caused: 1. Without violation of the agreement between the partners, (a) By the termination of the definite term or particular undertaking specified in the agreement, (b) By the express will of any partner when no definite term or particular undertaking is specified, (c) By the express will of all the partners who have not assigned their interests or suffered them to be charged for their separate debts, either before or after the termination of any specified term or particular undertaking