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.
Victor J. RUTECKI and Richard H. Saur, Individually and Doing Business as Rutecki/Saur & Associates, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. S.H. GOW & COMPANY, INC. and Charles T. Reller, Individually, Defendants-Appellants.
Although Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendants' cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action, it erred in granting plaintiffs' motion seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under the first cause of action and erred in denying that part of defendants' cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that cause of action. The first cause of action alleges the breach of a joint venture agreement “to create and manage a group self-insurance trust on behalf of the Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc.” In the absence of an express contractual term fixing the duration of that agreement or other proof establishing the intention of the parties in that regard, we conclude that the joint venture agreement was terminable at will by defendants (see, Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 90 A.D.2d 991, 991-992, 456 N.Y.S.2d 587). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the object of the joint venture was not a specified result or the completion of a specified piece of work, and thus it cannot be presumed that the parties intended the relationship to continue “until the accomplishment of a particular undertaking” (Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., supra, at 992, 456 N.Y.S.2d 587; see, Hardin v. Robinson, 178 App.Div. 724, 729, 162 N.Y.S. 531, affd. 223 N.Y. 651, 119 N.E. 1047). We therefore modify the order by denying plaintiffs' motion and granting that part of defendants' cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 21, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)