Opinion
January 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
Inasmuch as the various items of relief plaintiff seeks are all premised on the existence of a partnership between herself and the individual defendant, summary judgment should have been granted in the absence of any evidence tending to show that plaintiff contributed to the capital of the alleged partnership (see, Kyle v. Ford, 184 A.D.2d 1036, 1037), or was to share in its losses (see, Matter of Steinbeck v. Gerosa, 4 N.Y.2d 302, 317-318, appeal dismissed 358 U.S. 39). Moreover, there being no dispute that the business in which plaintiff claims an interest was operated as a corporation, claims premised on the existence of a partnership must necessarily fail, at least in the absence of evidence that the individual defendant formed the corporation for the limited purpose of carrying out his individual part in the enterprise (see, Fromkin v. Merrall Realty, 15 A.D.2d 919, 920, lv denied 11 N.Y.2d 647). We have considered the other points raised by the parties and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.