You are here: / Limited Liability Company Law
, , ,

THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the breach of contract (commercial lease) cause of action against defendant limited liability companies which had purchased the assets of the original lessee (another limited liability company) should not have been dismissed. The majority concluded the complaint stated a cause of action under the theory that defendants constituted a “mere continuation” of the original lessee. The dissent argued the “mere continuation” theory does not apply where, as here, there are two purchasers of the original lessee’s assets:

… [W]e find that plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of contract against [defendants] based on the “mere continuation” exception to the rule against successor liability. “Although no one factor is dispositive,” courts determining whether a successor corporation is a “mere continuation” of its predecessor have considered whether: (1) all or substantially all assets are transferred to the successor corporation; (2) the predecessor corporation has been effectively extinguished following the transaction; (3) the successor has assumed an identical or nearly identical name; (4) the successor has retained one or more of the same corporate officers, directors, and/or employees; and (5) the successor has continued the same business … . * * *

Neither the motion court nor defendants cite to any authority prohibiting application of mere continuation successor liability where more than one company has acquired the assets of the predecessor. We disagree with the dissent to the extent that it asserts that Schumacher (59 NY2d 239) stands for the proposition that the existence of more than one successor corporation necessarily bars application of the mere continuation doctrine. In Schumacher, there was only one successor … . Accordingly, it does not address the situation in the facts pleaded by plaintiff in this case. Avamer 57 Fee LLC v Hunter Boot USA LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04607, First Dept 8-7-25

Practice Point: The purchasers of a business which constitute a “mere continuation” of the seller’s business can be liable under a contract originally entered by the seller.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER NURSING HOME, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, HAD AN EXCELLENT INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAM, IT WAS PROPERLY FINED FOR A VIOLATION OF THE INFECTION-CONTROL REGULATIONS BY ONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, confirming the findings of the administrative law judge, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the petitioner nursing-home-facility was subject to fines for violations of the COVID-19 infection-control regulations. The regulations required nursing home employees to change gowns and glove after being in a unit with COVID-19 positive residents. The court noted that petitioner, as a limited liability company, can be penalized for the intentional violation of regulations by its employees under an agency theory:

… [P]etitioner [limited liability company], like corporations and similar entities, may be penalized “for the intentional acts of its agents that are either (1) in violation of positive prohibitions or commands of statutes regarding corporate acts, (2) authorized through action of its officers or which are done with the acquiescence of its officers, or (3) performed on behalf of the corporation if undertaken within the scope of the agents’ authority, real or apparent” … . As it is alleged here that a regulation governing petitioner’s conduct was intentionally violated by one of its employees in the course of his work, petitioner may be penalized for that conduct, if proven. * * *

Petitioner had no deficiencies in the five infection control surveys conducted in the months leading up to the December 2020 survey, counsel for the Department conceded at the hearing that it “had a great infection control program for many months,” and the surveyor who witnessed the violation acknowledged that petitioner had developed an appropriate infection control plan and properly trained employees about their obligations under it. Respondent was nevertheless free to credit the proof that the aide violated that policy on one occasion in December 2020 and, notwithstanding petitioner’s efforts to argue otherwise, we are satisfied that such constitutes substantial evidence in the record for the determination that petitioner’s employee “violate[d], disobey[ed] or disregard[ed]” multiple provisions of 10 NYCRR 415.19 and the infection control program in the course of his work and that such rendered petitioner liable (Public Health Law § 12). Matter of RSRNC, LLC v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 04131, Third Dept 7-10-25

Practice Point: Here a violation of Public Health Law regulations concerning COVID-19 infection control by an employee of petitioner nursing home, a limited liability company, warranted imposing a penalty on the nursing home.

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging that the corporate veil should be pierced should not have been dismissed. The complaint alleged failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds:

“To survive a motion to dismiss the complaint, a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must allege facts that, if proved, establish that the party against whom the doctrine is asserted (1) exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and (2) through such domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiff such that a court in equity will intervene” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate or LLC form include the failure to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and the personal use of LLC funds” … . “Additionally, the corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego” … . “[A] fact-laden claim to pierce the corporate veil is unsuited for resolution on a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss” … . Goldberg v KOSL Bldg. Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01790, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here the allegations in the complaint that defendant failed to adhere to LLC formalities, inadequately capitalized the corporate entities, commingled assets, and personally used LLC funds sufficiently supported plaintiff’s seeking to pierce the corporate veil.

 

,

HERE THE LLC AGREEMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS, WAS UNILATERALLY AMENDED BY DEFENDANT SUCH THAT DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PLAINTIFF WAS EXTINGUISHED AFTER PLAINTIFF HAD PERFORMED; ALTHOUGH HARSH, THIS OUTCOME WAS SUPPORTED BY DELAWARE LAW AND WAS AFFIRMED BY THE MAJORITY OVER A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff was bound by the terms of an amended limited liability company (LLC) agreement which was unilaterally amended by defendant. The amended agreement included a merger clause which effectively nullified a prior oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant providing that defendant would buy-out plaintiff’s interest in the LLC after five years. Plaintiff had invested three million and his share of the LLC was worth over 11 million at the five-year mark:

… [T]he amended LLC agreement … contained a merger clause which states:

“This Agreement, together with the Certificate of Formation, each Subscription Agreement and all related Exhibits and Schedules, constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties to this Agreement with respect to the subject matter contained herein and therein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings, agreements, representations and warranties, both written and oral, with respect to such subject matter, including the Original Agreement.” * * *

Upon his initial investment, plaintiff became bound by the original LLC agreement, including its clause dictating how its terms could be altered. Once the agreement was altered pursuant to its terms, plaintiff became bound by the amended LLC agreement, including its merger clause. Pursuant to the amended LLC agreement’s choice-of-law provision, Delaware law governs its interpretation and reach … . Under Delaware’s Limited Liability Company Act, which aims to “give the maximum effect to the principle of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of limited liability company agreements” … , a member of an LLC “is bound by the limited liability company agreement whether or not the member . . . executes the limited liability company agreement” … . Plaintiff, as a member of [the LLC], is therefore bound by its operating LLC agreement—the amended LLC agreement—regardless of whether he signed it. * * *

Though an outcome whereby one member to a contract unilaterally extinguishes his contractual obligation, even after the other party has performed, may appear “harsh,” … Delaware law “unambiguously advises prospective investors in a closely held LLC (especially one considering a multimillion-dollar investment) to scrutinize the existing LLC agreement and condition their investment upon the clear written delineation thereunder of . . . their contracted-for rights in the event of any future amendments to the LLC agreement” … . Behler v Kai-Shing Tao, 2025 NY Slip Op 00803, CtApp 2-13-25

Practice Point: Here the LLC agreement was, in accordance with its terms, unilaterally amended by defendant to extinguish a prior contractual obligation owed plaintiff after plaintiff had performed. This harsh result was supported by Delaware law, which basically says anyone entering an LLC agreement which can be unilaterally changed should think twice.

 

, ,

HERE AN ATTORNEY AND A CONTRACTOR WERE BUSINESS PARTNERS FOR YEARS AND RELIED ON EACH OTHER’S UNIQUE EXPERTISE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ATTORNEY BREACHED A FIDUCIARY DUTY BY TRANSFORMING THE PARTNERSHIP TO AN LLC WITHOUT INFORMING HIS FORMER PARTNER HE COULD NOT UNILATERALLY WITHDRAW FROM THE LLC; HERE THE CRITERIA FOR A STATUTORY DISSOLUTION OF THE LLC WERE MET (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant attorney, Mazza, breached his fiduciary duty owned to plaintiff when forming a Limited Liability Company (LLC), and further determined that the cause of action seeking a statutory dissolution of the LLC should have been granted. Defendant Mazza and plaintiff were partners in a successful business for many years. It was alleged that when the partnership was transformed to an LLC by Mazza, Mazza did not inform plaintiff he could not unilaterally withdraw from of dissolve the LLC:

There is no dispute that a fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and Mazza before the LLC was formed. The record indeed reflects that plaintiff trusted Mazza, an attorney, to act on his behalf in executive matters related to the partners’ real estate business, and that Mazza resultingly acquired influence over plaintiff … . The close relationship between the two men, which spanned more than three decades and included Mazza’s prior representation of plaintiff, supports this conclusion. And although plaintiff was a skilled and seemingly successful contractor, he admittedly had no knowledge of the legal (and practical) implications of converting a partnership to an LLC and accordingly relied on Mazza’s expertise in that area. * * *

Limited Liability Company Law § 702 provides that “the supreme court . . . may decree dissolution of a limited liability company whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.” Although an alleged “deadlock” between the members of a limited liability company will not necessarily render it impracticable for the company to carry on its business … , upon careful review of the record we find that it does in the case at bar. Amici v Mazza, 2025 NY Slip Op 00259, Third Dept 1-16-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed discussion the criteria for a fiduciary duty owed by one party to another in a business relationship.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the criteria for a statutory dissolution of an LLC.

 

, ,

THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY AN LLC; ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES TO THE PARTITION ACTION ARE EQUAL MEMBERS OF THE LLC, MEMBERS HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF AN LLC; THEREFORE THE PARTITION ACTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the partition action could not be maintained because the real property was owned by an LLC and not by tenants in common or a joint tenancy, despite the fact that the parties to the partition action were members of the LLC:

An action for the partition and sale of real property may be maintained by “[a] person holding and in possession of real property as joint tenant or tenant in common” (RPAPL 901[1]). The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs on their summary judgment motion established that, contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the property was owned exclusively by the LLC and not by Emerson, Kasan, and the defendant as tenants in common. Essentially, the plaintiffs contended that the three individual parties held equal membership interests in the LLC, which owned the property. “A membership interest in the limited liability company is personal property. A member has no interest in specific property of the limited liability company” (Limited Liability Company Law § 601). Thus, the individual parties hold no ownership interest in the property. Further, even assuming that the plaintiffs had established that the individual parties held equal membership interests in the LLC, there is no allegation or evidence that the LLC has been dissolved or that the LLC’s affairs have been properly wound up (see id. § 703). Accordingly, this action, inter alia, for partition and sale of the LLC’s property cannot be maintained … . 459 Wash. Ave., LLC v Atkins, 2024 NY Slip Op 04538, Second Dept 9-25-24

Practice Point: Although the partition action would have been available if the parties were joint tenants or tenants in common, it was not available because the property was owned by an LLC of which the parties were equal members. Members of an LLC have no interest in the specific property of the LLC.

 

,

THE AMENDED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT SUPERSEDED THE PRIOR ORAL SIDE AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT INCLUDED AN UNAMBIGUOUS INTEGRATION AND MERGER CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the amended Limited Liability Company (LLC) agreement with an integration and merger clause superseded the prior oral side agreement, called an exit opportunity agreement:

… [T]he amended LLC agreement contains a clear and unambiguous integration and merger clause providing that it “constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties to this Agreement with respect to the subject matter contained herein and therein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings, agreements, representations and warranties, both written and oral, with respect to such subject matter;” the “subject matter” being the “allocation of profits and losses among the Members, distributions among the Members, [and] the rights, obligations and interests of the Members to each other and to the Company” … . * * *

… [T]he merger clause explicitly states that the amended LLC agreement supersedes all prior written and oral agreements concerning the subject matter of the amended LLC agreement … . Behler v Kai-Shing Tao, 2024 NY Slip Op 01337, First Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: Here the unambiguous integration and merger clause in the amended Limited Liability Company agreement precluded enforcement of a prior oral side agreement. Although the issue here appears simple, it was the subject of a full-fledged majority opinion and a full-fledged two-justice dissenting opinion.

 

,

DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S FAILURE TO UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TEN YEARS WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant limited liability company’s (FAC’s) failure to update its address for service of process on file with the Secretary of State was not a reasonable excuse sufficient to defeat a motion for leave to enter a default judgment:

Generally, a corporation’s failure to receive copies of process served upon the Secretary of State due to a breach of its own obligation to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State does not constitute a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing or answering the complaint, although “there is no per se rule” … . In determining whether a reasonable excuse was demonstrated, “a court should consider, among other factors, the length of time for which the address had not been kept current” … .  * * *

… FAC failed to meet its burden of establishing a reasonable excuse … . FAC’s failure to file with the Secretary of State the current address of the agent designated to receive service of process on its behalf for a period of at least 10 years, without providing any explanation of its failure, does not constitute a reasonable excuse … . Bachvarov v Khaimov, 2024 NY Slip Op 00753, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: Failure to update an LLC’s address for service of process on file with the Secretary of State is not a reasonable excuse for a default.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NYC HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE; THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK PLAINTIFF COMPLETED WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the plaintiff contractor was required to have a home improvement contractor’s license by the New York City Administrative Code. Therefore plaintiff’s breach of contract, unjust enrichment, account stated and quantum meruit causes action against the owner of the property plaintiff worked on was correctly dismissed. The First Department determined the LLC which owned the property was an “owner” within the meaning of the Administrative Code, and the contract was a home improvement contract within the meaning of the meaning of the code:

Obtaining a home improvement contractor’s license is neither a ministerial act nor a mere technicality … . Rather, “strict compliance with the licensing statute [i.e. Administrative Code § 20-387] is required, with the failure to comply barring recovery regardless of whether the work performed was satisfactory, whether the failure to obtain the license was willful or, even, whether the homeowner knew of the lack of a license and planned to take advantage of its absence” … .

There is no dispute that plaintiff is a “contractor” for licensing purposes (see Administrative Code § 20-386[5]), and that plaintiff did not have a valid license. The controversy here essentially distills to whether defendant owners are “owners” within the meaning of Administrative Code § 20-387(a), and, if so, whether the agreement between the parties was a “home improvement contract” (Administrative Code § 20-386[6]). If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then plaintiff was required to have a home improvement contractor’s license to recover for the work; if the answer to either question is no, then plaintiff did not need a license. KSP Constr., LLC v LV Prop. Two, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00356, First Dept 1-25-24

Practice Point: A contractor who does renovation work in New York City without a NYC Home Improvement Contractor’s license cannot sue for payment for the work.

 

, , ,

THE DIRECT BENEFITS THEORY OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF, A NONSIGNATORY TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE PLAINTIFF, THERFORE, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a nonsignatory, the plaintiff Rosh, Inc., could not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the direct benefits theory of estoppel:

The court should have denied the motion to compel arbitration of Rosh’s claims because Rosh is a nonsignatory to the agreement that contains the arbitration clause and defendants failed to show that the direct benefits theory of estoppel applies …  Under that theory, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where it “knowingly exploits the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement” … .

Here, the arbitration clause was contained in a partnership agreement. However, Rosh was not a party to that agreement nor a partner in the partnership. Rather, Rosh was a ten percent owner in a limited liability company that was the general partner of the partnership. This did not constitute a direct benefit to Rosh from the partnership agreement … .

Moreover, before Rosh could be compelled to arbitrate, it had to invoke or attempt to enforce the terms of the partnership agreement … . To the contrary, all of Rosh’s claims were asserted under the operating agreement of the limited liability company or based on its status as a member of that company. Gilat v Sutton, 2023 NY Slip Op 05363, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff was a nonsignatory to the agreement with the arbitration clause. Because plaintiff did not directly benefit from or exploit the agreement, plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the direct benefits theory of estoppel.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy