Vintage, LLC v Laws Constr. Corp.
2008 NY Slip Op 01618 [48 AD3d 332]
February 26, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 16, 2008


Vintage, LLC, Respondent,
v
Laws Construction Corp. etal., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[*1]Andrew Greene & Associates, P.C., White Plains (Stanley S. Zinner of counsel), forappellants.

Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York City (Donald J. Carbone of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered on or aboutSeptember 14, 2006, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1.5 million against defendantsLaws Construction, the Westway/Laws Construction joint venture, and United States Fidelity andGuaranty, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the award vacated, and the complaintdismissed. 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 asidethe 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 theelements of a joint venture (see Cobblah v Katende, 275 AD2d 637, 639 [2000]). Further,the verdict should have been set aside because there was insufficient evidence from which thejury could have determined that a joint venture had been formed as of the date plaintiff claims tohave entered into two contracts with that venture (see Chanler v Roberts, 200 AD2d 489[1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 903 [1994]). Because the remaining defendants (not parties tothis 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'sstatement 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.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.