You are here: / Corporation Law
,

THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307 IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THE FAILURE TO MAKE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO COMPLY WARRANTED DENIAL OF A MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 306-b (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ failure to make diligent efforts to serve defendant in accordance with Business Corporation Law 307 required dismissal of the complaint:

… [B]ecause the failure to strictly comply with the procedures of Business Corporation Law § 307 constitutes a jurisdictional defect, rather than a mere irregularity, the 30-day time period in Business Corporation Law § 307 (c) (2) is not subject to extension under CPLR 2004 … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs did not make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with the procedures of Business Corporation Law § 307. Although plaintiffs personally delivered the summons with notice to an authorized agent of the Secretary of State and sent a copy of the summons with notice by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the address that PLS had registered with the Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations within Pennsylvania’s Department of State … , they made absolutely no effort to thereafter file the affidavit of compliance and the requisite accompanying documents … . Moreover, the excuse provided for plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve PLS in accordance with Business Corporation Law § 307 amounts to law office failure, an excuse that has been held to be insufficient to constitute good cause … . Thus, as plaintiffs did not make the requisite showing, they are not entitled to an extension “upon good cause” under CPLR 306-b. Garrow v Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05010, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND AN ACCOUNTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; FAILURE TO TRANSFER ASSETS ALLEGED A CONTINUING WRONG AND PAYMENTS WHICH ALLEGEDLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD WERE ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated causes of action for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting against her sister (Weisel), the sole manager of A & Z, of which plaintiff is also a member. The court noted that the allegation that Weisel did not transfer assets to A & Z alleged a continuing wrong, so payments allegedly owed to A & Z within the statute of limitations period were actionable:

To state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must allege that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered … . …

“[A] fiduciary owes a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect . . . barring not only blatant self-dealing, but also requiring avoidance of situations in which a fiduciary’s personal interest possibly conflicts with the interest of those owed a fiduciary duty” … . Here, the plaintiff has alleged that Wiesel is the sole manager of A & Z—which, if true, would impose a fiduciary duty on Wiesel arising out of her position as the sole manager of A & Z … . The amended complaint sufficiently alleges that Wiesel is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff, arising out of both her position as sole manager of A & Z and her familial relationship with the plaintiff … .  …

A cause of action for accounting requires “the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship and a breach of the duty imposed by that relationship respecting property in which the party seeking the accounting has an interest” … . Greenberg v Wiesel, 2020 NY Slip Op 04927, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT MET; ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SHAREHOLDERS OR EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pleading requirements for a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action were not met and defendant attorneys, who represented the corporation, not the decedent, did not owe a fiduciary duty to decedent:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the Berger defendants’ [attorneys’] motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the sixth cause of action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against them. ” [T]he elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendants misconduct'” … . A cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty must be pleaded with the particularity required under CPLR 3016(b) … . Here, the sixth cause of action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against the Berger defendants, contained only bare and conclusory allegations related to damages, without any supporting detail, and failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3016(b) … .

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Berger defendants represented Rockland Inc., and owed a fiduciary duty to the decedent based upon that representation. However, a corporation’s attorney represents the corporate entity, not its shareholders or employees … . Mann v Sasson, 2020 NY Slip Op , 04737, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

/by
, ,

BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THIS DIRECTORS & OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST FORMED TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion applied to the Directors & Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy:

Plaintiff Westchester Fire Insurance Co. … commenced this action seeking a declaration that it has no coverage obligations to defendants insureds, arguing primarily that the “insured versus insured” exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy, procured by RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), bars coverage of claims asserted against defendants, … RCAP’s former directors and officers. Defendants insureds contend, among other things, that coverage exists under the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion. The claims, herein, arose after RCAP’s bankruptcy.

The Creditor Trust was formed, pursuant to the reorganization plan, to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of the unsecured creditors … . …

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 04627, First Dept 8-20-20

 

/by
, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether the corporate veil should be pierced in this breach of contract action:

The plaintiff alleged that it contracted with the defendant China Perfect Construction Corp. (hereinafter China Perfect) to perform certain construction work, and that China Perfect breached that contract by performing the work in a substandard manner. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants Rushang Zhao and May Lu … exercised complete dominion and control over the operations of China Perfect and used such dominion and control to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff alleged that the individual defendants created the defendant New Empire Builder Corp. …  solely to avoid the debts and liabilities of China Perfect, and that they transferred the assets of China Perfect to New Empire in order to render China Perfect “judgment-proof.” * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to affirmatively establish, prima facie, that the individual defendants did not exercise dominion and control over China Perfect to commit a wrong or injustice against the plaintiff, such that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is inapplicable … . Sterling Park Developers, LLC v China Perfect Constr. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04340, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

/by
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant in this foreclosure action brought by a foreign corporation did not demonstrate the corporation was doing business in New York without authorization. Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on that ground should not have been granted:

“Business Corporation Law § 1312(a) constitutes a bar to the maintenance of an action by a foreign corporation found to be doing business in New York without . . . the required authorization to do business there” … . “The purpose of that section is to regulate foreign corporations which are doing business’ within the State, not . . . to enable the avoidance of contractual obligations” … . “[T]he party relying upon this statutory barrier bears the burden of proving that the corporation’s business activities in New York were not just casual or occasional, but so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity in the jurisdiction”… . “[A]bsent proof establishing that the [subject corporation] is doing business in New York, it is presumed that [it] is doing business in [the] State of incorporation, and not in New York” … .

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that “[the appellant] conducted continuous activities in [New York] essential to its corporate business” … . Therefore, “the presumption that [the appellant] does business, not in New York but in its State of incorporation has not been overcome” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Didato, 2020 NY Slip Op 03903, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/by
,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ITS DEFAULT BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS INCORRECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate its default because it was never served with the summons and complaint should have been granted. The defendant demonstrated the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect and the failure to update the address was not a deliberate attempt to avoid service:

” CPLR 317 provides, generally, that a defendant is entitled to vacatur of a default judgment if it is established that he [or she] did not receive personal notice of the summons in time to defend and that he [or she] has a meritorious defense'”… . “It is also well established that service on a corporation through delivery of process to the Secretary of State is not personal delivery’ to the corporation or to an agent designated under CPLR 318” … . While it is not necessary for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse for its delay … , a defendant is not entitled to relief under that statute where its failure to receive notice of the summons “was a result of a deliberate attempt to avoid such notice” … .

Here, the defendant established its entitlement to relief from its default under CPLR 317 by demonstrating that the address on file with the Secretary of State at the time the summons and complaint were served was incorrect, and that it did not receive actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend itself against this action … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, an order dated August 21, 2013, issued in connection with the 2009 action, which was mailed to the defendant at the subject property, did not place the defendant on notice that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect  … . In addition, the evidence does not suggest that the defendant’s failure to update its address with the Secretary of State constituted a deliberate attempt to avoid service of process … . Moreover, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Golden Eagle Capital Corp. v Paramount Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03770, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

/by
, , , , ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM A NONFINAL ORDER, HERE ORDERS WHICH DID NOT RESOLVE THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES; IN A SUCCESSFUL SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE PAID BY THE CORPORATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined no appeal lies from a nonfinal order and, in a successful shareholders’ derivative action, the corporation is liable for attorney’s fees. The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here. Defendant limited liability company was formed to develop a residential subdivision. The action alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and sought dissolution of the LLC:

… “[A]lthough all of the substantive issues between the parties were resolved, the order was facially nonfinal, since it left pending the assessment of attorneys’ fees—a matter that plainly required further judicial action of a nonministerial nature” … . Further, plaintiffs’ “request for attorneys’ fees was an integral part of each of the asserted causes of action rather than a separate cause of action of its own,” and therefore that issue cannot be implicitly severed from the other issues … . Thus, the order … does not constitute a ” final order’ ” within the meaning of CPLR 5501 (a) (1) and does not bring up for our review any prior non-final order … . * * *

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and disbursements in his status as a derivative plaintiff acting on the LLC’s behalf and in awarding such fees and disbursements … . “The basis for an award of attorneys’ fees in a shareholders’ derivative suit is to reimburse the plaintiff for expenses incurred on the corporation’s behalf . . . . Those costs should be paid by the corporation, which has benefited from the plaintiff’s efforts and which would have borne the costs had it sued in its own right” … . Thus, plaintiff’s success as a derivative plaintiff is not an acceptable basis for an award of attorneys’ fees and disbursements against defendant individually. Howard v Pooler, 2020 NY Slip Op 03347, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

/by
, , ,

ACCOUNTING CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PROPER WAY TO HANDLE A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS TO MOVE TO VACATE AND THEN APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this shareholders’ derivative action against a low-income Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC), determined: (1) although a sua sponte order is not appealable, the appeal of the dismissal of the cause of action for an accounting is heard in the interest of justice; (2) the proper way to handle a sua sponte order is to move to vacate it and then appeal; (3) there was no need to amend the complaint because the accounting cause of action included the right to damages for wrongdoing (here the alleged failure to account for the sale of an apartment for $90,000):

An order issued sua sponte is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] …). Plaintiffs’ remedy is to move to vacate the court’s order, and, if the motion is denied, appeal from that order (CPLR 5701[a][3] …). …

… [W]e find that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint because the cause of action for an equitable accounting was not moot. Supreme Court conflated the first cause of action for the inspection of the HDFC’s books and records with the second cause of action for an equitable accounting … . Defendants failed to demonstrate what happened to the $90,000 from the sale of Apartment 6A, and the funds do not appear in the HDFC’s financials. Defendants’ affidavits did not address this glaring deficiency.

… An equitable accounting involves a remedy “designed to require a person in possession of financial records to produce them, demonstrate how money was expended and return pilfered funds in his or her possession” … . Available relief includes a personal judgment against the wrongdoer … . Hall v Louis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03268, First Dept 6-11-20

 

/by
, ,

THE DOCTRINE OF ‘TAX ESTOPPEL’ PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM TAKING A POSITION ON OWNERSHIP OF A CORPORATION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO STATEMENTS MADE IN CORPORATE TAX RETURNS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and clarifying a prior ruling. determined the doctrine of “tax estoppel” applied to preclude defendant Elayan from taking a position contrary to the factual statements in corporate tax returns re: an ownership interest in the corporation, Edgewater:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to apply the doctrine of “tax estoppel.” Under that doctrine, defendants’ acts in filing corporate tax returns for the years 2010 through 2014, signed by defendant Elayan, which contained factual statements that plaintiff Jaber had a 75% ownership interest in Edgewater during that time period, and precludes defendants from taking a position contrary to that in this litigation … . To the extent our decision in Matter of Bhanji v Baluch (99 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2012]) has been interpreted as making the doctrine generally inapplicable with respect to factual statements of ownership in tax returns, we clarify that the doctrine applies where, as here, the party seeking to contradict the factual statements as to ownership in the tax returns signed the tax returns, and has failed to assert any basis for not crediting the statements … . PH-105 Realty Corp v Elayaan, 2020 NY Slip Op 02971, First Dept 5-21-20

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy