Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
VINTAGE, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LAWS CONSTRUCTION CORP., et al., Defendants-Appellants, Westway Industries, Inc., et al., Defendants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2006, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1.5 million against defendants Laws Construction, the Westway/Laws Construction joint venture, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the award vacated, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment accordingly. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 9, 2007, which denied appellants' motion to set aside the jury verdict and judgment against them, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic, in view of the foregoing. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 14, 2007, settling the transcript, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court erred in not granting appellants' request for a jury charge containing all the elements of a joint venture (see Cobblah v. Katende, 275 A.D.2d 637, 639, 713 N.Y.S.2d 723 [2000] ). Further, the verdict should have been set aside because there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could have determined that a joint venture had been formed as of the date plaintiff claims to have entered into two contracts with that venture (see Chanler v. Roberts, 200 A.D.2d 489, 606 N.Y.S.2d 649 [1994], lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 903, 621 N.Y.S.2d 506, 645 N.E.2d 1204 [1994] ). Because the remaining defendants (not parties to this appeal) settled out of the case prior to trial, the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
Appellants' challenge to the settling of the transcript was undermined by their counsel's statement immediately after the charge was given, and by their failure to raise a timely objection (CPLR 4110-b).
We have considered appellants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 26, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)