Limited Liability Company Law – Page 5 – New York Appellate Digest

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the causes of action brought by a minority shareholder in a limited liability company (LLC) were derivative in nature. The complaint was filed in 2012 and plaintiff withdrew from the LLC in 2015. Therefore plaintiff lacked standing to sue:

[Plaintiff] first cause of action sought an accounting, his second cause of action sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty, his third cause of action sought the appointment of a receiver … , his fourth cause of action sought the imposition of a constructive trust, and his fifth cause of action was to recover damages for waste. …

“[M]embers of a limited liability company (LLC) may bring derivative suits on the LLC’s behalf” … . In a derivative suit, “[t]he remedy sought is for wrong done to the corporation; the primary cause of action belongs to the corporation; [and] recovery must enure to the benefit of the corporation”… . In the context of a corporation, “the standing of the shareholder is based on the fact that . . . he [or she] is defending his [or her] own interests as well as those of the corporation” … . “Where the plaintiff voluntarily disposes of the stock, his [or her] rights as a shareholder cease, and his [or her] interest in the litigation is terminated. Being a stranger to the corporation, the former stockowner lacks standing to institute or continue the suit” … . The same is true in the context of an LLC. In order to maintain a derivative cause of action, a plaintiff must be a member of the LLC … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly held that, once the plaintiff withdrew from WIC, he lost standing to maintain any derivative causes of action on behalf of the company, notwithstanding his possible right to a future payment for the value of his membership interest upon his withdrawal … . Jacobs v Cartalemi, 2017 NY Slip Op 08506, Second Dept 12-6-17

CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))/DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))

December 6, 2017

Civil Commitment, Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Limited Liability Company Law

SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ service of process on defendant was flawed but Supreme Court properly overlooked the defects under CPLR 2001. The Third Department further held that the defendant’s motion to change venue should have been granted. Both the method of service (mail) and venue were based on provisions in a purchase and sale contract. However, the purchase and sale agreement was with a limited liability company, but the confessions of judgment upon which the suit were based were signed by defendant in her personal capacity, not as the sole member of the LLC. Therefore the service and venue contract provisions did not apply:

Defendant and the limited liability companies of which she is a member “are distinct entities,” however, and the former is not individually bound by the contractual commitments of the latter… . Nothing in the purchase and sale agreement binds defendant to its terms, instead making clear that no “shareholder, director, officer of or principal or agent of” [the LLC] will “have any personal liability, directly or indirectly, under or in connection with” either the agreement or any amendments to it. …

Due to the inapplicability of those contractual provisions, plaintiffs’ effort to serve defendant by mail was deficient in that service “under CPLR 3213 is subject to the rules governing service of the summons generally” … . The mailing nevertheless placed defendant on notice of the pending motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and she responded with a cross motion that opposed the motion on various grounds. Plaintiffs then arranged for proper, albeit untimely, service of defendant pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), and advised that they were amenable to any further adjournment of the return date “as defendant and [Supreme] Court may find proper.”… Accordingly, while a wholesale failure to timely serve defendant with the initiatory papers constitutes “a fatal jurisdictional defect”… , defendant was placed on notice, then submitted a cross motion that raised various objections and included substantive opposition before being properly served. In light of these peculiar circumstances, as well as the absence of any prejudice flowing from plaintiffs’ missteps, we are persuaded that the untimeliness of the proper service could be and rightly was overlooked (seeCPLR 2001, 2004 …). Capolino v Goren, 2017 NY Slip Op 08246, Third Dept 11-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 2001 (SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT))

November 22, 2017

Contract Law, Limited Liability Company Law

APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appointment of an outside attorney [Mr. Zauderer] to serve as the sole member of a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to determine the merits of claims asserted in this LLC derivative suit was not allowed by the operating agreements:

Neither operating agreement provides for the delegation of decision-making authority to other than a member, or to an outsider like Mr. Zauderer to serve as SLC. The agreements are explicit that while day-to-day management is vested in the manager, “major decisions” need the consent of the other members. We reject the argument that the appointment of the SLC (as opposed to the ultimate decision as to whether to proceed with the derivative litigation) was not a “Major Decision” within the meaning of the agreements. The SLC was specifically granted the authority to “determine the positions and actions that the Companies should take with respect to the claims, considering, among other things, whether the claims have merit, whether they are likely to prevail, and whether it is in the Companies’ best interests to pursue them.”

That is not to say that the appointment of an SLC would in all cases be improper in the LLC context. Indeed, the members may so provide in the operating agreement, and such provision will be enforced in accordance with those same principles concerning the parties’ freedom to contract … . LNYC Loft, LLC v Hudson Opportunity Fund I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06147, First Dept 8-15-17

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))/DERIVATIVE ACTIONS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))OPERATING AGREEMENTS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))

August 15, 2017

Civil Procedure, Limited Liability Company Law

REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Limited Liability Company Law requirements for a default judgment against an unauthorized foreign limited liability company were not met:

A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment must file proof of proper service of the summons and the complaint, the defendant’s default, and the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f] …).

The plaintiff averred that it served the defendant, a foreign limited liability company not authorized to conduct business in New York, pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 304. As relevant to the plaintiff’s contentions, that statute requires three things. First, 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 … . 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 sent to the defendant by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the defendant’s last known address … . Third, after process has been delivered to the Secretary of State and direct notice of that service has been sent to the defendant, the plaintiff must file proof of service with the clerk of the court. That proof of service must be in the form of an “affidavit of compliance.” The affidavit of compliance must be filed with the return receipt within 30 days after the plaintiff has received the return receipt from the post office. Service of process shall be complete 10 days after the affidavit of compliance has been filed with the clerk with a copy of the summons and complaint … . Strict compliance with Limited Liability Company Law § 304 is required, including as to the filing of an “affidavit of compliance” … . Where the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate strict compliance, the plaintiff will not be entitled to a default judgment … . Here, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of compliance with the return receipt within 30 days after it received the return receipt from the post office. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment was properly denied … . Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Surgery Ctr. of Oradell, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06065, Second Dept 8-9-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

August 9, 2017

Limited Liability Company Law

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action against McDonald, the sole owner, officer and member of a limited liability company (Hyperion). The complaint alleged McDonald had rendered the LLC judgment proof such that it could not satisfy a debt owed to plaintiff. The court further found that the allegations against another party, who was alleged to be an “equitable owner” of the LLC, were not sufficient. Implicit in that ruling was the principle that a non-owner could be liable under a “piercing the corporate veil” or “alter ego” theory. The concurrence noted the issue whether the “piercing the corporate veil” or “alter ego” theory could apply to an “equitable” as opposed to “legal” owner of a corporate entity has not been determined in New York:

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges in the amended complaint that McDonald, “through [his] domination of [Hyperion], abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against [her]” … Plaintiff specifically alleged that McDonald took actions calculated to make Hyperion judgment-proof by undercapitalizing the LLC … , and dissolving and thereafter diverting the assets of Hyperion to a new entity … , without reserving funds to satisfy the judgment debt … . We therefore conclude that, at this stage of the litigation, plaintiff sufficiently alleged that McDonald “engaged in acts amounting to an abuse or perversion of the LLC form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against [her]” to survive his motion to dismiss the amended complaint … .

FROM THE CONCURRENCE:

While the principle that a nonshareholder may be liable as an equitable owner has been used by other courts in cases involving piercing the corporate veil … , the Court of Appeals has not expressly decided the issue… . The adoption of that concept by the Court of Appeals would involve wide-ranging policy considerations inasmuch as it would expand the pool of potential defendants subject to an alter ego theory to include non-owners (such as affiliated business entities, managers and employees), and could potentially reduce the protections afforded when forming a business entity. That concern may be even more significant to a limited liability company that, if the members so provide in their articles of organization, may be under the control of a manager or managers, rather than under the control of the members (see Limited Liability Company Law § 408 [a]). Grigsby v Francabandiero, 2017 NY Slip Op 05539, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ALTER EGO, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (ALTER EGO, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT)/ALTER EGO (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LEGAL OWNER OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UNDER THE ALTER EGO DOCTRINE BUT NOT AGAINST AN EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE COMPANY 4TH DEPT)

July 7, 2017

Civil Procedure, Court of Claims, Limited Liability Company Law

ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF.

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimant limited liability company’s (LLC’s) notice of claim could be amended to add an attorney’s signature. The notice of claim was timely filed pro se. The defendant argued that the failure to have the claim filed by an attorney representing the LLC violated CPLR 321 (a) and was a jurisdictional defect. The Third Department disagreed, finding the application of CPLR 321 (a) flexible and the related requirement nonjurisdictional. The court also noted that the claimant’s demand for equitable relief was not incidental to the requested monetary relief and therefore must be dismissed as beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims:

… [D]efendant does not point to any service or filing provision — or any other provision — of the Court of Claims Act that prohibits claimant from pro se representation. Instead, defendant relies on CPLR 321 (a), which provides that, subject to express exceptions, a “corporation or voluntary association shall appear by attorney” to “prosecute or defend a civil action,” and “like a corporation or a voluntary association, [an] LLC may only be represented by an attorney and not by one of its members who is not an attorney admitted to practice in the state of New York” … . Thus, as an initial matter, we conclude that compliance with CPLR 321 (a) does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction, as compliance with that provision is not a prerequisite to the waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to the Court of Claims Act … . * * *

… [G]iven the flexibility of the prohibition on corporate pro se representation and the Legislature’s express intent that technical irregularities in filing are subject to correction, absent prejudice and upon just terms … we hold that, under these circumstances, the irregularity of claimant’s initial filing was one that the Court of Claims could have disregarded, given counsel’s subsequent appearance on behalf of claimant, by granting so much of claimant’s motion to amend the claim as added counsel’s signature … . Hamilton Livery Leasing, LLC v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04943, 3rd Dept 6-15-17

COURT OF CLAIMS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, EQUITABLE RELIEF, ATTORNEYS, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, COURT OF CLAIMS, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT)/ATTORNEYS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, COURT OF CLAIMS, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/EQUITABLE RELIEF (COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT OF CLAIMS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, COURT OF CLAIMS CAN NOT GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE REQUESTED MONETARY RELIEF)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (COURT OF CLAIMS, ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY’S SIGNATURE ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT)

June 15, 2017

Contract Law, Limited Liability Company Law

NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined motions for summary judgment in this contract-interpretation case were properly denied. The contract at issue was an operating agreement for plaintiff limited liability company. Both the majority and the dissent found the contract language ambiguous. The majority concluded reference to extrinsic evidence was necessary, precluding summary judgment. The dissent argued plaintiffs had shown their interpretation was the only fair interpretation:

“It is well settled that a contract must be read as a whole to give effect and meaning to every term . . . Indeed, [a] contract should be interpreted in a way [that] reconciles all [of] its provisions, if possible’ ” … . Therefore, “[e]ffect and meaning must be given to every term of the contract . . . , and reasonable effort must be made to harmonize all of its terms” … . It is equally well settled that “[t]he interpretation of an unambiguous contractual provision is a function for the court . . . , and [t]he proper inquiry in determining whether a contract is ambiguous is whether the agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation . . . To be entitled to summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of establishing that its construction of the [contract] is the only construction [that] can fairly be placed thereon” … .

Here, neither party established that its interpretation of the Agreement is the only reasonable interpretation thereof … . Consequently, summary judgment is inappropriate at this juncture because a “determination of the intent of the parties depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence” … . Maven Tech., LLC v Vasile, 2017 NY Slip Op 00840, 4th Dept 2-3-17

CONTRACT LAW (NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED)/AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT TERMS (NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED)

February 3, 2017

Civil Procedure, Debtor-Creditor, Limited Liability Company Law

MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR; CHARGING ORDER, RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO THE CREDITOR, IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY.

The Second Department determined a debtor’s membership in a limited liability company can be reached by a judgment creditor. The court further determined that a remedy other than the assignment of the membership interest to the creditor was properly fashioned by Supreme Court:

In considering the remedies available to a judgment creditor such as the petitioner under CPLR article 52, the Supreme Court was not limited to considering the petitioner’s request for an order assigning to him [the debtor’s membership interest in the LLC. CPLR 5240, which was relied upon by the Supreme Court, provides, in pertinent part, that a court “may at any time, on its own initiative or the motion of any interested person, and upon such notice as it may require, make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure” … . This section grants the Supreme Court broad discretionary power to alter the use of procedures set forth in CPLR article 52 … . Limited Liability Company Law § 607 expressly provides that, on an application by a judgment creditor of a member of an LLC, “the court may charge” the debtor’s membership interest “with payment of the unsatisfied amount of the judgment with interest,” and “[t]o the extent so charged, the judgment creditor has only the rights of an assignee of the membership interest.” Thus, CPLR 5240 and Limited Liability Company Law § 607 give the court discretion, in an appropriate case, to issue a charging order instead of, inter alia, an order assigning or turning over the judgment debtor’s membership interest in an LLC to the judgment creditor … . Matter of Sirotkin v Jordan, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05576, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR; CHARGING ORDER, RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO THE CREDITOR, IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR; CHARGING ORDER, RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO THE CREDITOR, IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR; CHARGING ORDER, RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO THE CREDITOR, IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY)

July 20, 2016

Limited Liability Company Law

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION.

The Second Department determined the plaintiff limited liability company's failure to comply with the publication requirement of Limited Liability Company Law 2016[a] precluded the company from bringing the action:

Limited Liability Company Law § 206 requires limited liability companies to publish their articles of organization or comparable specified information for six successive weeks in two local newspapers designated by the clerk of the county where the limited liability company has its principal office, followed by the filing of an affidavit with the Department of State, stating that such publication has been completed … . Failure to comply with these requirements precludes a limited liability company from maintaining any action or special proceeding in New York … . Here, as the defendants correctly contend, since the plaintiff failed to comply with the publication requirements of Limited Liability Company Law § 206, it is precluded from bringing this action … . Small Step Day Care, LLC v Broadway Bushwick Bldrs., L.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 02071, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

LIMITWED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION)/PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION)

March 23, 2016

Contract Law, Fraud, Limited Liability Company Law

LIABILITY OF MEMBERS OF A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PRECLUSION OF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES ACTION WHICH DUPLICATE BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS, AND CRITERIA FOR A RICO MAIL FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH.

In an action against a limited liability company alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement relating to the design, construction and marketing of a condominium, the Second Department included substantial discussions of, inter alia, the liability of members of limited liability companies, including the criteria for piercing the corporate veil in this context, the preclusion of fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of action which are duplicative of breach of contract allegations, and the criteria for a RICO mail fraud cause of action. With respect to the liability of members of limited liability companies, the court explained:

… [A] member of a limited liability company will not be held liable for the liabilities of the company solely by reason of being a member of the company or acting in such capacity or participating in the conduct of the business of the company (see Limited Liability Company Law § 609[a]). “[M]embers of limited liability companies, such as corporate officers, may be held personally liable if they participate in the commission of a tort in furtherance of company business” … . * * *

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” … . “[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” … .

To state a cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, the “plaintiff must allege facts that, if proved, indicate that the shareholder exercised complete domination and control over the corporation [or LLC] and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate [or LLC] form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice'” … “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” … . Board of Mgrs. of Beacon Tower Condominium v 85 Adams St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00692, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

CORPORATION LAW (LIABILITY OF MEMBERS OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (LIABILITY OF MEMBERS)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES)/CONTRACT LAW (PRECLUSION OF DUPLICATIVE FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES OF ACTION)/MAIL FRAUD (RICO PLEADING REQUIREMENTS)/RICO (CIVIL, MAIL FRAUD PLEADING REQUIREMENTS)

February 3, 2016