You are here: / / THE DETAILED STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE REVISED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT (RLPA)...
,

THE DETAILED STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE REVISED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT (RLPA) PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNSIGNED PURPORTED AMENDMENT TO THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

he First Department determined the 1999 partnership agreement controlled and the purported 2004 amendment to the agreement, which was not executed, could not be enforced. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Suffice to say that the detailed statutory scheme of the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RLPA) precluded ignoring the Statute of Frauds with respect to the unexecuted amendment:

By design, the RLPA sets forth a clear separation between general and limited partners. This separation is more defined than the division between managers and members in limited liability corporations. With few exceptions, the RLPA provides that a general partner has the liabilities of a partner in a non-limited partnership. In exchange for a more passive position, the limited partners are generally sheltered from personal liability to third parties who transact business with the limited partnership (see generally, Bruce A. Rich, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 38, Revised Limited Partnership Act, at 317, 334-336). The RLPA’s default requirements of partner consent to substantive changes to a limited partnership agreement helps protect the passive limited partners from actions taken by general partners that might adversely affect the limited partners’ interests. That default protection would be undermined if we were to engraft on to the RLPA the equitable exceptions applicable to the Statute of Frauds. Accordingly, we decline to do so. A&F Hamilton Hgts. Cluster, Inc. v Urban Green Mgt., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04440, First Dept 8-6-20

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FUNCTIONED AS A SINGLE INTEGRATED UNIT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER; PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS HE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED BEFORE BRINGING THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly “Abut” Owner’s Property (Liability Based On New York City Ordinance).
DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE OF THE COVID PANDEMIC DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TIME LIMITS FOR RESPONSES TO FOIL REQUESTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISCHARGED THE JURY FOREMAN FOR ARGUING WITH ONE OR MORE JURORS WITHOUT INTERVIEWING ALL INVOLVED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR DECLINING THE COURT’S OFFER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IT COULD DEVIATE FROM THE ACQUIT-FIRST RULE AFTER THE JURY INDICATED IT HAD DEADLOCKED ON THE TOP COUNT (FIRST DEPT).
RELEVANT REGULATION, RATHER THAN THE POLICY LANGUAGE, CONTROLLED THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST ON INSURANCE POLICY PROCEEDS (FIRST 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

ALTHOUGH THE DAMAGES WERE DEEMED EXCESSIVE, PLAINTIFFS’ MULTI-MILLION... REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE, BASED UPON A 1995 DEFAULT...