Legal Opinion
Gelman v. Buehler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 3, 2012PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Defendant could not unilaterally dissolve the partnership since the partnership had the specific undertaking of acquiring *426a business and expanding it until the investors would receive a return on their capital investments. Moreover, the partnership also had a definite term, namely, to achieve the liquidity event. “ ‘[W]here a partnership has for its object the completion of a specified piece of work, or the effecting of a specified result, it will be presumed that the parties intended the relation to continue until the object has been accomplished’ ” (Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp. v…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Freedman v. Chemical Construction Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Scholastic, Inc. And Scholastic Productions, Inc. v. Robert Harris and Harris Entertainment, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- Foster v. KovnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Hardin v. RobinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gelman v. BuehlerNew York Court of Appeals · 2013
- Gural v. DrasnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Gural v. DrasnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013