You are here: / 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

 

,

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

 

, , ,

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))

,

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))

,

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))

, ,

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))

,

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))

, ,

UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s breach of contract action based upon an unexecuted contract which could not be completed within a lifetime was properly granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was a member of a limited liability company (Ocean Rich) which had taken out a life insurance policy for plaintiff’s decedent, payable to Ocean State. The agreement which was never signed would have required that the proceeds of the policy be used to buy out plaintiff’s decedent’s share of the LLC. The Second Department further determined counsel for the defendant LLC should be disqualified because he had represented the LLC before plaintiff’s decedent’s death:

​

… [T]he defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contract, by submitting evidence that the agreement was never executed by the members of Ocean Rich, and therefore does not satisfy the statute of frauds. …  Since the alleged promise upon which the plaintiff relied—that Ocean Rich would purchase the decedent’s interest in it from his estate with the proceeds of the subject insurance policy—could not, by its terms, “be completed before the end of a lifetime,” the Supreme Court properly granted [defendants’ motion for summary judgment]. …

​

… [T]he plaintiff alleged in an affidavit that the defendants’ counsel was involved in the formation of Ocean Rich, and the defendants’ counsel admitted that he had represented Ocean Rich in “various past matters.” Counsel’s prior representation of Ocean Rich “was in fact represent[ation of] its [three] shareholders,” whose competing interests are at issue in this action … . Likewise, counsel’s involvement in the formation of Ocean Rich and his representation of it against third parties was “substantially related” to the present action… . Since the defendants’ counsel was “in a position to receive relevant confidences” from the decedent, whose estate’s interests “are now adverse to the defendant[s’] interests,” the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to disqualify the defendants’ counsel … . Deerin v Ocean Rich Foods, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00820, Second Dept 2-7-18

CONTRACT LAW (UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS  (UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW, (UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff did not strictly comply with the requirements for service of process on defendant unauthorized foreign limited liability company. Plaintiff had been granted a default judgment dismissing the foreclosure proceeding as time-barred. Defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment was denied. The Fourth Department dismissed the complaint (without prejudice) finding that the flaws in service deprived the court of jurisdiction:

Pursuant to [Limited Liability Company law 304], “[f]irst, service upon the unauthorized foreign limited liability company may be made by personal delivery of the summons and complaint, with the appropriate fee, to the Secretary of State … . That was done by plaintiff in this case. “Second, in order for the personal delivery to the Secretary of State to be sufficient,’ the plaintiff must also give the defendant direct notice of its delivery of the process to the Secretary of State, along with a copy of the process” … . The direct notice may be given to the defendant personally… . That was attempted by plaintiff, but the process server was unable to make personal service inasmuch as the property was “unoccupied.” In the alternative, “[t]he direct notice may be sent to the defendant by registered mail, return receipt requested”… . That was attempted by plaintiff in this case, but the mail was returned to plaintiff as undeliverable. …

… [P]laintiff failed to comply with step two of Limited Liability Company Law § 304. …  Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to comply with step two, she necessarily also failed to comply with step three, which would show that a party complied with the service requirements of section 304. Initially, we note that plaintiff filed an affidavit of service showing personal service upon the Secretary of State and a notation that service was made upon defendant by registered mail, return receipt requested, but she did not file an affidavit of compliance… . Moreover, because plaintiff did not comply with step two, she was unable to file a return receipt signed by defendant “or other official proof of delivery” … . Purportedly attached to the affidavit of service filed by plaintiff was a copy of the envelope mailed to defendant by registered mail and returned to plaintiff as undeliverable. Rather than showing proof of delivery, plaintiff showed just the opposite, i.e., that the process was not delivered to defendant. We therefore conclude that the motion to vacate the default judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should have been granted… . Chan v Onyx Capital, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08966, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW,  PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the limited liability agreement controlled in this action by the estate of a member of the limited liability company (LLC) against the LLC.  Under the terms of the agreement the estate of the deceased member (Alex) was not a member of the LLC and therefore could not participate in the running of the company, could not demand to inspect the LLC’s books, and was not owed a fiduciary duty:

Ultimately, the parties disagree on the Estate’s rights and status under the LLC Agreement … . The Estate contends that it stepped into Alex’s shoes upon his death, and that it possesses all of his rights and privileges as a Member under the LLC Agreement. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that under the terms of the LLC Agreement, the Estate is considered the successor in interest of a Withdrawing Member (Alex) with rights only to potential distributions, and no rights to control or participate in the running of the company. Estate of Calderwood v ACE Group Intl. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08750, First Dept 12-14-17

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DEATH OF MEMBER OF LLC, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, DEATH OF A MEMBER, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEATH OF A MEMBER, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (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