Exploring New York's Oral Partnership Doctrine
This article analyzes the law of oral partnerships in New York, and summarizes how such partnerships can be created, operated and terminated.
November 05, 2021 at 11:00 AM
6 minute read
"But we never signed anything!" From time to time, business lawyers are likely to hear a client say (or yell) these words, believing that the absence of a written agreement defeats an adversary's claim that a partnership existed. Not so fast. New York has a complex and flexible oral partnership doctrine, and courts regularly find that a legal partnership exists even without any formal paperwork. The consequences of an oral partnership can be quite significant: Partners generally share in profits and losses, and owe fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, and fair dealing toward each other. Therefore, it is critical to understand the contours of the oral partnership doctrine. This article analyzes the law of oral partnerships in New York, and summarizes how such partnerships can be created, operated and terminated.
What Qualifies as an Oral Partnership?
Under New York law, a partnership is defined as "an association of two or more persons to carry on, as co-owners, a business for profit." N.Y. P'ship Law §10 (McKinney 2021). Of course, partnerships can be formed through a written agreement, but they can also be formed orally or through the parties' conduct, intention, and relationship. Czernicki v. Lawniczak, 74 A.D.3d 1121, 1124 (2d Dept. 2010) ("When there is no written partnership agreement between the parties, the court must determine whether a partnership in fact existed from the conduct, intention, and relationship between the parties."). An oral partnership therefore "does not have the same requirements as a formal contract and can be found even in the absence of a capital contribution … ." Leonard v. Cummins, 196 A.D.3d 886 n.2 (2021). Where a party alleges the existence of an oral partnership, that party "bears the burden of proving the indicia of such a relationship." F & K Supply v. Willowbrook Dev. Co., 304 A.D.2d 918, 920 (3d Dept. 2003).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Are Dominated by Small Cap Listings
The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
7 minute readA Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
13 minute readShifting Sands: May a Court Properly Order the Sale of the Marital Residence During a Divorce’s Pendency?
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250