Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gelman v. Buehler

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

Decided January 3, 2012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tom, J.E, and Catterson, J., dissent in a memorandum by Catterson, J., as follows:

In my opinion, because the plaintiff does not allege that the parties’ oral partnership agreement had a definite term, it was an at-will partnership that the defendant had the right to terminate at any time. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

This action arises from a purported oral partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that was formed for the purpose of engaging in a business venture called a “search fund.” The plaintiff alleges that the parties would solicit investment capital from…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shandell v. KatzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  2. Harshman v. PantaleoniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  3. Sanley Co. v. LouisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API