You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE...

DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ own motion papers raised a question of fact whether defendants intended to be bound by an unexecuted limited liability company operating agreement. Therefore defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action was properly denied without reference to the opposing papers:

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the agreement does not, on its face, demonstrate that the parties did not intend to be bound absent formal execution … . Moreover, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted emails exchanged between the parties and their respective attorneys. The defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the parties had agreed upon the major terms of the agreement and whether the parties began to perform the agreement. Accordingly, they failed to establish, prima facie, that the parties did not intend to be bound by the terms of the agreement … . Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers … . 223 Sam, LLC v 223 15th St., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03118, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CONTRACT LAW (UNEXECUTED AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/UNEXECUTED CONTRACTS (DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/UNSIGNED CONTRACTS (DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Contractor Working for Tenant Could Not Impose Mechanic’s Lien on Property Owner; Owner Acquiesced In, But Did Not Affirmatively Consent to, Work
THE AFFIDAVITS DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 WAS ACTUALLY MAILED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED PETITION FOR CIVIL MANAGEMENT OF A SEX OFFENDER FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT PROPERLY CONVERTED TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE PHYSICIAN SUED THE HOSPITAL FOR FAILING TO HONOR A CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT TO ADMIT PLAINTIFF TO A RESIDENCY PROGRAM; THE PHYSICIAN’S ACTION WAS PRECLUDED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Abuse Finding, Based Upon an Unsatisfactory Explanation for the Child’s Injury, Reversed Based Upon the Testimony of Petitioner’s Medical Witness Who Stated the Injury Could Have Been Caused by a Fall and Described the Child as Basically Asymptomatic and Happy at the Hospital
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO IDENTIFY “JOHN DOE” “JANE DOE” DEFENDANTS AS POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED AND THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT... COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF...