You are here: / Limited Liability Company Law
,

PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS LISTED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, IS THE CONTROLLING LOCATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that appellant’s motion for a change of venue should have been granted. Appellants demonstrated that the foreign limited liability company’s application for authority to conduct business in New York listed a principal office in New York County. Plaintiff brought the action in Queens County, alleging appellant’s principal place of business is in Queens County.  The principal office in New York County, pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law 102[s], was the controlling location for venue purposes:

Pursuant to CPLR 503(a), the venue of an action is properly placed in the county in which any of the parties resided at the time of commencement … . In support of their motion, the appellants established that QPS was a resident of New York County at the time of commencement by producing a certified copy of QPS’s application for authority to conduct business filed with the New York State Department of State, which listed New York as the county in which its principal office was located … . The plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the application for authority designated New York County as the location of QPS’s principal office, but claimed that QPS is a resident of Queens County because that is the location of its principal place of business. However, the sole residence of a foreign corporation or a foreign limited liability company for venue purposes is the county where its principal office is located as designated in its application for authority to conduct business filed with the New York State Department of State, regardless of where it transacts business or maintains its actual principal office or facility (see CPLR 503[c]…). Such office need not be a place where business activities are conducted by the limited liability company … . Carlton Group, Ltd. v Property Mkts. Group, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09423, 2nd Dept 12-23-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, PRINCIPAL OFFICE ON DEPARTMENT OF STATE APPLICATION IS THE CONTROLLING LOCATION OF A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FOR VENUE PURPOSES)/VENUE (FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL OFFICE AS LISTED ON DEPARTMENT OF STATE APPLICATION)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FOREIGN (FOR VENUE PURPOSES, LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL OFFICE AS LISTED ON DEPARTMENT OF STATE APPLICATION IS CONTROLLING LOCATION)

, ,

Although Plaintiff Limited Liability Company’s Articles of Incorporation Were Not Filed When It Took Title to Real Property—It May Have Validly Taken Title Pursuant to the “De Facto Corporation Doctrine”

The Second Department determined the defense motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence was properly denied. Plaintiff limited liability company was able to demonstrate that it may be entitled to a declaration that it was the fee simple owner of property under the “de facto corporation doctrine.” When plaintiff limited liability company took title, the company was not yet “in legal existence” because all the necessary documents had not been filed. Under the “de facto corporation doctrine” the limited liability company could be deemed to have taken title if (1) a law existed under which it might be organized, (2) there was an attempt to organize, and (3) there was an exercise of corporate powers thereafter:

Here, the documentary evidence submitted by [defendants] in support of their motion demonstrated that the plaintiff’s articles of organization had not been filed with the New York State Department of State prior to the conveyance to the plaintiff of the subject property. However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of its sole member, which demonstrated the applicability of the de facto corporation doctrine … . Specifically, the affidavit of the plaintiff’s sole member demonstrated that there was a law under which the LLC might be organized (see Limited Liability Law §§ 203, 209), that the plaintiff made a “colorable attempt” to comply with the statutes governing the formation of an LLC, including the filing requirement, and that the plaintiff exercised its powers as an LLC thereafter… . Lehlev Betar, LLC v Soto Dev. Group, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06496, 2nd Dept 8-12-15

 

, ,

Promissory Note Reflecting a Loan to a Limited Liability Company Was Criminally Usurious As Well As Void Under the General Obligations Law—Provision Purporting to Reduce the Interest Rate to a Non-Usurious Rate If the Original Rate Were Found to be Usurious Did Not Save the Note

The Second Department determined a promissory note imposing an annual interest rate of more than 25% (60% here) was criminally usurious (Penal Law 190.40) and could not be saved by a provision purporting to reduce the interest rate to a non-usurious rate if the original rate were found to be usurious. The court noted that, although a limited liability company (the defendant here) cannot assert the defense of civil usury, a limited liability company can assert the defense of criminal usury.  In addition, the note was void under General Obligations Law 5-511 because the interest rate exceeded 16%. Fred Schutzman Co. v Park Slope Advanced Med., PLLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04447, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

,

Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege a Presuit Demand Would Be Futile

The First Department, noting that the presuit demand required by Business Corporation Law 626(c) applies to Limited Liability Companies, determined that plaintiff failed to adequately allege the presuit demand was excused as futile. The court noted that Business Corporation Law 625(c) does not differentiate between majority and minority shareholders and a corporation’s refusal to provide information is not on the list of circumstances where a demand is excused:

Pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 626(c), a plaintiff shareholder must “set forth in the complaint – with particularity – an attempt to secure the initiation of such action by the board or the reasons for not making such effort” … . Demand is excused due to futility when a complaint alleges with particularity that: (1) “a majority of the board of directors is interested in the challenged transaction”; or (2) “the board of directors did not fully inform themselves about the challenged transaction to the extent reasonably appropriate under the circumstances”; or (3) “the challenged transaction was so egregious on its face that it could not have been the product of sound business judgment of the directors” … . The demand requirement of Business Corporation Law § 626(c) also applies to members of New York limited liability companies … .

The complaint alleges only that since Sowers owns 80% of the LLC, it would be futile for plaintiff to make a demand upon him to consent to the filing of an action on the LLC’s behalf. However, this Court has made clear that Business Corporation Law § 626(c) “does not differentiate between minority and majority shareholders for demand purposes” … . We note that Sowers’ alleged concealment of financial information does not warrant a finding that demand was futile, since “[a] corporation’s refusal to provide information to its shareholders is not on the [] list of circumstances where demand is excused” … , Barone v Sowers, 2015 NY Slip Op 04195, 1st Dept, 5-14-15

 

, ,

Failed Attempt to Circumvent the Banking Law by Making a High-Cost Home Loan to a Limited Liability Company to which the Home Had Been Transferred

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted on defendants’ counterclaim alleging plaintiff’s violation of the Banking Law which prohibits “high-cost home loans” (Banking Law 6-1).  Plaintiff had attempted to circumvent the law by making the loan to a limited liabilIty company to which the defendants-owners had transferred the home. The Second Department determined the provisions of the Banking Law relating to “high-cost home loans” which (1) prohibited “subterfuge” to circumvent the law, (2) prohibited the consolidation of loan payments made payable in advance, (3) required certain notices, and (4) prohibited excessive points and fees, applied to the transaction in issue:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their first counterclaim, which was to recover damages and for declaratory relief for violations of Banking Law § 6-l, which imposes limitations and prohibits certain “practices for high-cost home loans” (Banking Law § 6-l[2]). The defendants established, prima facie, that the subject loan was a “high-cost home loan” (Banking Law § 6-l[1][d]; see Banking Law § 6-l[1][f][i]-[iii]; [g][ii]…). …[U]nder the circumstances of this case, Banking Law § 6-l applies to the … loan, even though it was made to a limited liability company, and not to “a natural person” (Banking Law § 6-l[1][e][ii]). The provisions of Banking Law § 6-l apply “to any person who in bad faith attempts to avoid the application of this section by any subterfuge” (Banking Law § 6-l[3]). Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing that a representative of [plaintiff] attempted, in bad faith, to avoid the application of the statute by “subterfuge,” and that, thus, the statute applied to the Aries loan (Banking Law § 6-l[3]). Moreover, the defendants’ submissions demonstrated, prima facie, that [plaintiff] violated the provisions of Banking Law § 6-l(2) by consolidating the first 12 payments and having them “paid in advance from the loan proceeds provided to the [defendants]” (Banking Law § 6-l[2][e]); engaging in “loan flipping” (Banking Law § 6-[2][i]); making the loan “without due regard to repayment ability” (Banking Law § 6-l[2][k]); failing to provide required notices (see Banking Law § 6-l[2][e]; [2-a][a]); and financing points and fees, as defined in Banking Law § 6-l(1)(f), “in an amount that exceeds three percent of the principal amount of the loan” (Banking Law § 6-l[2][m]).  Aries Fin., LLC v 12005 142nd St., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03115, 2nd Dept 4-15-15

 

, ,

Operating Agreements Created a Limited Liability Company In Which Members Did Not Share Control of the Development Project or Responsibility for Losses/No Fiduciary Duty Arises from a Limited-Liability-Company Relationship, As It Does from a Partnership or Joint Venture

The Second Department noted that a fiduciary duty did not arise among members of a limited liability company, as it would have in a partnership or joint venture.  Here, the operating agreements created a limited liability company in which (unlike a partnership or joint venture) the members did not share control of the project or responsibility for losses:

“Generally, where parties have entered into a contract, courts look to that agreement to discover . . . the nexus of [the parties'] relationship and the particular contractual expression establishing the parties' interdependency. If the parties . . . do not create their own relationship of higher trust, courts should not ordinarily transport them to the higher realm of relationship and fashion the stricter duty for them'” … . Here, the written operating agreements submitted in support of the motions demonstrated an intent to form a limited liability company, not a partnership or joint venture that would have given rise to a fiduciary relationship. Moreover, the members of the limited liability company did not share control of the subject development project or responsibility for the losses, which are elements of both a joint venture and a partnership … . Grand Pac Fin Corp v 97-111 Hale LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08604, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

, ,

Criteria for “Apparent Authority” to Enter a Binding Contract, Including the “Apparent Authority” of a Member of a Limited Liability Corporation, Explained

In determining the criteria for apparent authority, including apparent authority under the Limited Liability Corporation Law, had been met, the Fourth Department held that member of the defendant limited liability corporation (Sultan) entered into a binding contract on behalf of the defendant corporation:

“Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction. The agent cannot by his own acts imbue himself with apparent authority. Rather, the existence of apparent authority depends upon a factual showing that the third party relied upon the misrepresentation of the agent because of some misleading conduct on the part of the principal — not the agent” … . Here, we conclude that plaintiffs reasonably relied on, inter alia, their prior course of dealing with Sultan in his capacity as president, principal and manager of defendant … . * * *

…[W]e note that Limited Liability Company Law § 412 (a) provides that, “[u]nless the articles of organization of a limited liability company provide that management shall be vested in a manager or managers, every member is an agent of the limited liability company for the purpose of its business, and the act of every member, including the execution in the name of the limited liability company of any instrument, for apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the limited liability company, binds the limited liability company, unless (i) the member so acting has in fact no authority to act for the limited liability company in the particular matter and (ii) the person with whom he or she is dealing has knowledge of the fact that the member has no such authority.” A nearly identical subsection provides that, where management of an LLC is vested in a manager, the acts of the manager are binding upon the LLC unless the manager at issue has in fact no authority to act for the LLC, and the person with whom he or she is dealing knows that the manager lacks such authority (§ 412 [b] [2] [A], [B]). Thus, regardless whether Sultan was acting as a manager of defendant, as reflected by his signature on the contract, or as a member of defendant, as he and defendant’s attorney previously had indicated to plaintiffs, he had apparent authority to act and his acts were binding upon defendant unless, inter alia, plaintiffs had “knowledge of the fact that [Sultan] ha[d] no such authority” … . Pasquarella v 1525 William St LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05745, 4th Dept 8-8-14

 

,

Question of Fact About Whether Managing Member Breached Fiduciary Duty Owed to Nonmanaging Member with Respect to Managing Member’s Alleged Reliance Upon an Outside Professional

The First Department determined the defendant (Gary) was not entitled to summary judgment.  Gary was the managing member of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) and was sued by a nonmanaging member. Gary argued that, under the Limited Liability Company Law (section 409), he was entitled to rely on the advice of an accountant, and that the cause of action based upon Gary’s acting in accordance with the accountant’s advice should be dismissed. The court described the fiduciary duty owed by Gary to the plaintiff and the criteria for the managing member’s reliance on an outside professional:

As the managing member of the LLCs, Gary owed plaintiff — a nonmanaging member — a fiduciary duty … . “[I]t is elemental that a fiduciary owes a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect. This is a sensitive and inflexible rule of fidelity, barring not only blatant self-dealing, but also requiring avoidance of situations in which a fiduciary’s personal interest possibly conflicts with the interest of those owed a fiduciary duty” … .Reliance on outside professionals under Limited Liability Company Law § 409(b)(2) must be in good faith (see Limited Liability Company Law § 409[a]…).  As described here, Gary does not meet his initial burden of showing that he acted in good faith and undivided loyalty to plaintiff so as to rely on Limited Liability Company Law § 409 or the business judgment rule. Pokoik v Pokoik, 2014 NY Slip Op 01502,, 1st Dept 5-6-14

 

Buyout Upon Dissolution Can Be Ordered by Judge 

The Second Department determined a court can order a buyout of another’s interest in a limited liability company (LLC) upon judicial dissolution of the LLC:

The Limited Liability Company Law “does not expressly authorize a buyout in a dissolution proceeding “ … . Nonetheless, in certain circumstances, a buyout may be an appropriate equitable remedy upon the dissolution of an LLC … . Under the facts of this case, the remedy of a buyout by the plaintiff is appropriate … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the provisions of the LLC agreement regarding dissolution of the LLC do not preclude an order authorizing a buyout upon the judicial dissolution of the LLC pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 702 … . Mizrahi v Cohen, 2013 NY Slip Op 02056, 2012-02021, Index No 3865/10, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

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