ROSSNER v. PARSON

The motion court erred in characterizing the relationship between the parties as a "de facto" partnership based upon the parties holding themselves out as partners. How the parties appeared to others is of little relevance to their liabilities inter se. The relationship should more properly have been held to be a joint venture (see Ackerman v. Landes, 112 A.D.2d 1081, 1082). Defendant concedes that the parties did have an office-sharing, work-sharing and fee-sharing arrangement, and that he kept a log of the files, annexed as exhibit J to plaintiff's papers, in which fees were to be shared. Under such circumstances, defendant owes plaintiff an accounting with respect to such of the files contained in this log as he removed from the parties' office, and we modify to limit the accounting to those files. Allocation of the fees attributable to these files can be resolved on the accounting. The foregoing is without prejudice to plaintiff's seeking a further accounting with respect to files not contained in the log.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.