Limited Liability Company Law Archives - New York Appellate Digest

MEMBER OF LLC WHICH OWNED A MOBILE HOME PARK IS PERSONALLY LIABLE, PURSUANT TO THE RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICER DOCTRINE, FOR AN $800,000 PENALTY IMPOSED FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIRING SEWAGE-TREATMENT MEASURES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Burr, one of two members of a limited liability company, C & J, was properly held personally liable for the violation of an administrative order issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEP). C & J owned a mobile home park and the administrative order concerned the treatment of waste from the park. The penalty was more than $800,000.00:

Under Limited Liability Company Law § 609, a member of a limited liability company is generally not liable for the contractual obligations of the company. The 2008 order on consent, however, is not merely a contractual obligation. It is also an administrative order, the violation of which is subject to statutory enforcement (see ECL 71-1929). This Court has recognized that a responsible corporate officer may be held personally liable for violations of consent orders issued by DEC that implicate public health and safety … . Individual liability may be imposed where the corporate officer has the knowledge of and ability to prevent or remedy a violation that presents a public health hazard … . …

There can be little dispute that Burr was well aware of the ongoing sewage violations at the park, and, as managing member, he held a position of authority to address the problem. … [T]he 2008 consent order, which Burr signed on C & J’s behalf, expressly provided for stipulated penalties in the event that C & J “fail[ed] to strictly and timely comply.” The order further specified that it was binding on C & J and its officers. …

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court did not err in holding Burr personally liable under the responsible corporate officer doctrine. State of New York v C & J Enters., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00024, Third Dept 1-2-20

January 2, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Limited Liability Company Law

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate compliance with the service of process requirements of the Limited Liability Company Law:

“The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process” … . Proof of service, often in the form of an affidavit of service (see CPLR 306 [d]), must include “the papers served, the person who was served and the date, time [and] address [of such service], . . . and set forth facts showing that the service was made by an authorized person and in an authorized manner” … . Additionally, “[b]ecause service of process is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants, courts require strict compliance with the statutory methods of service” … . As relevant here, “[s]ervice of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic limited liability company . . . shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with the secretary of state or his or her deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, . . . duplicate copies of such process together with the statutory fee” … . …

Although plaintiffs proffered an unsigned receipt of service purportedly generated by the Office of the Secretary of State, that receipt did not set forth the papers served, whether duplicate copies of those papers were delivered to the Secretary of State, the time of service or facts showing that service was made by an authorized person (see Limited Liability Company Law § 303 [a]; CPLR 306 [a], [d]). Cedar Run Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04528, Third Dept 6-6-19

June 6, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Corporation Law, Labor Law-Construction Law, Limited Liability Company Law

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AND HOLD A MEMBER OF DEFENDANT LLC PERSONALLY LIABLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LLC MEMBER PERSONALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion for summary judgment in this construction accident case against a member of defendant LLC should not have been granted. The motion papers did not support piercing the corporate veil to reach the LLC member (Albaliya) personally:

As a limited liability company, Nadlan is a separate legal entity from its members (see Limited Liability Company Law § 609). “A member of a limited liability company cannot be held liable for the company’s obligations by virtue of his [or her] status as a member thereof'” … .

“However, a party may seek to hold a member of an LLC individually liable despite this statutory proscription by application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil” … . “Generally, . . . piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . Singh v Nadlan, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03100, Second Dept 4-24-19

April 24, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Debtor-Creditor, Fraud, Limited Liability Company Law

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD BUT THE HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTUAL FRAUD WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an action alleging members of defendant liability company fraudulently transferred funds from the LLC to the defendant members to render the LLC insolvent. The First Department determined the constructive fraud cause of action was sufficiently pled but the allegations did not support an actual fraud cause of action:

… [T]he complaint implicitly alleges that a necessary element of fair consideration, i.e., good faith, was lacking when the transfers were made. …

However, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for actual fraud under Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 276 and 276-a. … [U]nlike the allegations supporting the constructive fraud claim, the allegations supporting the actual fraud claim are subject to the heightened pleading standard of CPLR 3016(b), and the allegations about fair consideration do not meet that standard, because they were made upon information and belief, and the source of the information was not disclosed … .

Nor does the complaint allege any other badges of fraud. Brennan v 3250 Rawlins Ave. Partners, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03002, First Dept 4-23-19

April 23, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Contract Law, Limited Liability Company Law

PLAINTIFF WAS A NONMEMBER PURCHASER OF A MEMBER’S INTEREST IN THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BRING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who was a nonmember purchaser of a member’s interest in the limited liability company (LLC), could not bring derivative causes of action on behalf of the LLC:

A “[m]ember” is a person who has been admitted as a member of a limited liability company in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Limited Liability Company Law and the limited liability company’s operating agreement, and who has a membership interest in the limited liability company with the rights, obligations, preferences, and limitations specified under the Limited Liability Company Law and the operating agreement (Limited Liability Company Law § 102[q]). A “[m]embership interest” means “a member’s aggregate rights in a limited liability company, including, without limitation: (i) the member’s right to a share of the profits and losses of the limited liability company; (ii) the member’s right to receive distributions from the limited liability company; and (iii) the member’s right to vote and participate in the management of the limited liability company” (Limited Liability Company Law § 102[r]).

Here, the plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to obtain the consent of the nonselling members to be admitted as a member of the LLC when she acquired her membership interest. Paragraph 8 of the LLC’s operating agreement provides that “[n]ew members may be admitted only upon the unanimous consent of the Members and upon compliance with the provisions of this agreement,” and paragraph 32(e) of the operating agreement provides that “[a] non-member purchaser of a member’s interest cannot exercise any rights of a Member unless, by unanimous vote, the non-selling Members consent to him becoming a Member” (see Limited Liability Company Law § 602). Therefore, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff, as a nonmember purchaser who had not been admitted as a member of the LLC, lacks standing to pursue derivative causes of action on behalf of the LLC … . Kaminski v Sirera, 2019 NY Slip Op 01067, Second Dept 2-13-19

February 13, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Contract Law, Corporation Law, Landlord-Tenant, Limited Liability Company Law

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the doctrine of incorporation by estoppel was properly applied in this breach of contract (lease) case. Although plaintiff limited liability company did not exist at the time the lease was signed, defendant took possession of the property. Defendant was therefore estopped from escaping liability under the lease based on the nonexistence of plaintiff limited liability company:

“Since a nonexistent entity cannot acquire rights or assume liabilities, a corporation which has not yet been formed normally lacks capacity to enter into a contract”… . However, a corporation may be deemed to exist and possess the capacity to contract pursuant to the doctrine of incorporation by estoppel … . The doctrine of incorporation by estoppel, or corporation by estoppel, is based on the principle that “one who has recognized the organization as a corporation in business dealings should not be allowed to quibble or raise immaterial issues on matters which do not concern him [or her] in the slightest degree or affect his [or her] substantial rights” … . TY Bldrs. II, Inc. v 55 Day Spa, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08345, Second Dept 12-5-18

CORPORATION LAW (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/ESTOPPEL (INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE LEASE WAS SIGNED, DEFENDANT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL, DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))

December 5, 2018/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Limited Liability Company Law

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department determined that defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 was properly granted:

CPLR 317 provides that a defendant who is not served by personal delivery in an action may vacate its default as long as it demonstrates that it did not personally receive notice of the lawsuit in time to defend against the action and shows that it possesses a potentially meritorious defense … . The determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 317 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, “the exercise of which will generally not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor”… .

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of 510's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale on the condition that it pay all amounts owed within 30 days of the date of the order. Service of the summons and complaint in the foreclosure action was made upon 510 by delivering the pleadings to the Secretary of State (see Limited Liability Company Law § 303), which did not constitute personal delivery … , and 510's submissions in support of the motion established that it did not receive actual notice of the foreclosure action in time to defend… . Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, 510 succeeded in setting forth a potentially meritorious defense to the foreclosure action. Finally, the evidence does not suggest that 510's failure to update its service address with the Secretary of State while its principal offices were undergoing renovations constituted a deliberate attempt to evade notice; hence, that failure did not preclude the granting of relief to it under CPLR 317 … . Acqua Capital, LLC v 510 W. Boston Post Rd, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05991, Second Dept 9-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317 (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))

September 12, 2018/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Limited Liability Company Law

CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not comply with the CPLR requirements for service of a summons and complaint upon a limited liability company and the court did not obtain jurisdiction over the defendant:

Here, the plaintiff commenced the action by the filing of a summons and verified complaint on September 20, 2016. The affirmation of personal service executed by the plaintiff’s counsel stated that on September 24, 2016, at the defendant’s store located in Hicksville, he personally served the defendant with a copy of the summons and complaint by delivering it to “JANE DOE, A PERSON WHO REFUSED TO PROVIDE NAME.” Although this attempt at service occurred within 120 days after the commencement of the action, the defendant correctly contends that the manner of service failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 311-a, which provides, as relevant here, that personal service upon a limited liability company shall be made by delivering a copy personally to any member or manager of the company, any agent authorized to receive process, or any other person designated by the company to receive process. The defendant, by its evidentiary submissions, demonstrated that the individual purportedly served was not authorized to receive process on behalf of the defendant, and thus, jurisdiction over the defendant was not obtained … . Pinzon v IKEA N.Y., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05213, Second Dept 7-11-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 311-A (CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))/JURISDICTION (CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT))

July 11, 2018/by Bruce Freeman

Corporation Law, Limited Liability Company Law, Workers' Compensation

DEFENDANT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the defendant was the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer and therefore plaintiff’s only remedy for the on the job injury was under the Workers’ Compensation Law:

Generally, employees injured in the course of their employment may recover against their employers only under the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6) expressly provides that “[t]he right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee” … . The exclusive remedy provisions also bar employees from seeking damages from “alter egos” of their employers … .. The alter ego rule applies when one of the entities in question controls the other or when the two entities operate as a single integrated entity … . A mere showing that the entities are related—by, for example, sharing officers or ownership—is insufficient… .

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff’s employer by submitting evidence that, among other things, in addition to owning the premises, it was the sole owner and manager of the limited liability company that was the plaintiff’s employer, that the plaintiff’s employer was formed to provide bus drivers for the defendant’s pupil transportation business, and that the two entities shared the same Workers’ Compensation insurance policy … . Clarke v First Student, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02766, Second Dept 4-25-18

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER,THEREFORE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, ALTER EGO, DEFENDANT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER,THEREFORE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB (SECOND DEPT))/ALTER EGO (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DEFENDANT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER,THEREFORE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB (SECOND DEPT))

April 25, 2018/by Bruce Freeman

Election Law, Limited Liability Company Law

ATTEMPT TO CONTEST THE NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ FAILURE TO PLUG THE LLC LOOPHOLE, WHICH ALLOWS HIGHER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR LLC’S THAN FOR CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS, PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND LACK OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurring opinion and an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that the petitioners’ attempt to contest the NYS Board of Elections’ failure to plug the LLC loophole was properly dismissed because the petitioners did not have standing and because the petition did not present a justiciable controversy. The LLC loophole treats limited liability companies as individuals for campaign contribution purposes. LLC’s therefore can contribute more than corporations and partnerships:

Essentially, petitioners ask this Court to direct respondent to rescind its 1996 opinion on the LLC Loophole and replace it with one that would provide what they assert to be a superior application of public policy. We may not grant this request without violating the vital principle of the separation of powers. That principle dictates that each branch of government “should be free from interference, in the lawful discharge of duties expressly conferred, by either of the other branches” … . Here, the Legislature has conferred the authority to make directions pertaining to campaign financing practices upon respondent … . This Court cannot disturb respondent’s lawful directions with regard to LLCs without interfering with “policy-making and discretionary decisions that are reserved to the legislative and executive branches” … . The important issues raised here involve matters of discretion and policy that have been expressly entrusted to another branch of government and are “beyond the scope of judicial correction” … .

The nonjusticiable nature of this controversy is closely interconnected with the question of petitioners’ standing to pursue this matter — “an aspect of justiciability which, when challenged, must be considered at the outset of any litigation” … . To establish standing, petitioners must show that they have suffered an injury-in-fact and that the injury is within the zone of interests protected by the statute at issue .. Here, the dispute focuses upon the injury-in-fact element, which requires petitioners to establish that they have suffered or will suffer concrete harm that is “distinct from that of the general public” … . Matter of Brennan Ctr. for Justice At NYU Sch. of Law v New York State Bd. of Elections, 2018 NY Slip Op 02228, Second Dept 3-29-18

ELECTION LAW (LLC LOOPHOLE, ATTEMPT TO CONTEST THE NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ FAILURE TO PLUG THE LLC LOOPHOLE, WHICH ALLOWS HIGHER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR LLC’S THAN FOR CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS, PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND LACK OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY (THIRD DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (ELECTION LAW, ATTEMPT TO CONTEST THE NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ FAILURE TO PLUG THE LLC LOOPHOLE, WHICH ALLOWS HIGHER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR LLC’S THAN FOR CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS, PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND LACK OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY (THIRD DEPT))/CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS (ELECTION LAW, LLC LOOPHOLE, ATTEMPT TO CONTEST THE NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ FAILURE TO PLUG THE LLC LOOPHOLE, WHICH ALLOWS HIGHER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR LLC’S THAN FOR CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS, PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND LACK OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY (THIRD DEPT))

March 29, 2018/by Bruce Freeman