Hoffman v. Eisenberg
Opinion of the Court
A review of the record shows that no triable issues of fact were raised pertaining to the agreement between the parties and that this action was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). The plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendants were either general partners or limited partners of a New York limited partnership.
A limited partnership is a creature of statute. In order to create a limited partnership, the members are required to file a certificate containing, inter alia, "[t]he name[s] and placets] of residence of each member; general and limited partners being respectively designated” (Partnership Law § 91 [1] [a] [IV]). Partnership status in a limited partnership may not be established by implication (see, M.I.F. Secs. Co. v Stamm & Co., 94 AD2d 211, affd 60 NY2d 936). The defendants were not listed in any capacity whatever in the certificate of limited partnership herein. Moreover, Partnership Law § 93 provides that "[t]he contributions of a limited partner may be cash or other property, but not services” and since the defendants concededly contributed only their legal services, they could not be found to be limited partners.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.