## Facts

- Between late 2006 and February 2007, Timothy Murray spent about $225,000 renovating a building for use as a delicatessen.
- From early 2007 through fall 2008, Timothy operated Murray’s Delicatessen in the renovated building with his siblings, Michael Murray and Eileen Coyle.
- All three siblings worked at the deli, each putting in roughly 60 hours per week.
- In dealings related to the deli, the siblings held themselves out to others as “partners.”
- The deli was profitable, and the siblings split profits equally while also taking an hourly wage.
- In 2008, Timothy asked Michael and Eileen to begin making monthly payments toward what Timothy described as their agreed capital contributions of $225,000 each.
- Michael and Eileen denied that any partnership existed and refused to make the requested payments.
- Timothy could not produce evidence of a written partnership agreement but sued Michael and Eileen, asking the court to declare that a partnership existed.

## Issues

1. Whether Timothy proved that he, Michael, and Eileen formed a partnership to operate Murray’s Delicatessen, even without a written partnership agreement.
2. Whether Timothy proved that the alleged partnership included a binding obligation requiring Michael and Eileen to contribute $225,000 each in capital, payable through monthly payments.

## Decision

- The court addressed Timothy’s request for a declaration as to whether a partnership existed among the siblings in operating the delicatessen.
- The court evaluated the parties’ course of conduct, including their equal work commitments, equal sharing of profits, and their holding themselves out as partners in business dealings.
- The court treated the absence of a written partnership agreement as relevant to the claimed capital-contribution terms, but not necessarily dispositive of whether a partnership existed at all.
- To the extent Timothy sought to impose specific capital-payment obligations based on an asserted written agreement he could not substantiate, the court required proof of those terms rather than assumption.

## Legal Principles

- A partnership under New York law may be formed by the parties’ conduct and does not depend on a written agreement.
- Holding oneself out as a partner, sharing profits, and jointly operating a business are recognized indicators of a partnership relationship.
- Profit sharing is strong evidence of partnership status, particularly when paired with shared labor and participation in the enterprise.
- A party asserting specific partnership terms (such as large, fixed capital contributions or a particular payment schedule) bears the burden to prove those terms; the lack of reliable proof of a claimed written agreement can defeat enforcement of the claimed terms even if a partnership is otherwise shown.
- Courts determining partnership status focus on objective business behavior and how the parties presented their relationship to third parties, not only later disputes over ownership labels.

## Conclusion

*Murray v. Murray* concerned whether siblings operating a profitable delicatessen formed a partnership based on their conduct—working extensive hours, sharing profits equally, and presenting themselves as partners—despite the lack of a written agreement, and it separately tested whether the plaintiff could prove any specific, enforceable obligation for $225,000 capital contributions claimed to be set out in an unproduced partnership agreement.


Murray v. Murray, 32 Misc. 3d 1234(A) (2011)