Chiu v. Chiu
| Decision Date | 02 March 2010 |
| Parties | MAN CHOI CHIU, et al., appellants,v.Winston CHIU, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
71 A.D.3d 646
896 N.Y.S.2d 131
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 01768
MAN CHOI CHIU, et al., appellants,
v.
Winston CHIU, respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 2, 2010.
Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Bruce H. Wiener of counsel), and Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellants (one brief filed).Michael C. Marcus, Long Beach, N.Y., and Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey M. Eilender of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, RUTH C. BALKIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
[71 A.D.3d 647] In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the parties' interests in a certain limited liability company, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), entered March 17, 2008, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and (2) so much of an order of the same court entered July 14, 2008, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to the determination in the order entered March 17, 2008, granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order entered March 17, 2008, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that part of the order was superseded by the order entered July 14, 2008, made upon reargument and renewal; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered July 14, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action seeking his expulsion as a member of the plaintiff 45–52 Northern Blvd., LLC (hereinafter the LLC). It is undisputed that the default provisions of the Limited Liability Company Law apply, as neither the articles of organization nor the alleged operating agreement of the LLC contain a provision concerning expulsion of members ( see Manitaras v. Beusman, 56 A.D.3d 735, 868 N.Y.S.2d 121; Ross v. Nelson, 54 A.D.3d 258, 861 N.Y.S.2d 670). Although Limited Liability Company Law § 701 mentions expulsion of members, there is no statutory provision authorizing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiss v. All Year Holdings Ltd. (In re All Year Holdings Ltd.)
...were rewritten by the parties after YGWV was created and substituted in All Year's place.12 See, e.g. , Man Choi Chiu v. Chiu , 71 A.D.3d 646, 647, 896 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dep't 2010) (holding that Section 701(b) ’s reference to expulsion does not create a basis for termination via expulsion u......
-
Garcia v. Garcia (In re Garcia)
...Limited Liability Company Law does not contain a provision governing the expulsion of members. See generally Man Choi Chiu v. Chiu, 71 A.D.3d 646, 896 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2010). See also In re Garrison–Ashburn, L.C., 253 B.R. 700,704 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2000) (applying Virginia law and concluding that ......
-
Weiss v. All Year Holdings Ltd. (In re All Year Holdings Ltd.)
... ... YGWV was created and substituted in All Year's ... place ... [ 12 ] See, e.g. , Man Choi ... Chiu v. Chiu , 71 A.D.3d 646, 647 (2d Dep't 2010) ... (holding that Section 701(b)'s reference to expulsion ... does not create a basis for ... ...
-
Weiss v. All Year Holdings Ltd. (In re All Year Holdings Ltd.)
... ... YGWV was created and substituted in All Year's ... place ... [ 12 ] See, e.g. , Man Choi ... Chiu v. Chiu , 71 A.D.3d 646, 647 (2d Dep't 2010) ... (holding that Section 701(b)'s reference to expulsion ... does not create a basis for ... ...
-
LLC agreements
...and its two wholly-owned subsidiaries that directly harmed the plaintiff. The motion to dismiss this claim was denied. Chiu v. Chiu , 896 N.Y.S.2d 131 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. 2010) Complaint stated cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by alleging facts in sufficient detail to show that......