Summary
granting summary judgment where plaintiff offered no evidence he "contributed to the capital of this alleged partnership, was to share in its losses, or exercised direct control over its day-to-day operations."
Summary of this case from Kaur v. Royal Arcadia Palace, Inc.Opinion
December 7, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
Summary judgment was properly granted in the absence of evidence that plaintiff, who seeks to establish a partnership interest in an enterprise that was in form a corporation, contributed to the capital of this alleged partnership, was to share in its losses, or exercised joint control over its day-to-day operations ( see, Greenberg v Ladicorbic, 200 A.D.2d 465, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 757; Blaustein v Lazar Borck Mensch, 161 A.D.2d 507, 508). However, issues of fact were raised as to whether there was an agreement to compensate plaintiff, through a percentage of the profits or otherwise, for his efforts in establishing the enterprise. Accordingly, we grant plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to state a cause of action for breach of contract ( see, Ramirez v Goldberg, 82 A.D.2d 850).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.