Corman v. Lafountain
| Decision Date | 20 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2005-11128. |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 02503,38 A.D.3d 706,835 N.Y.S.2d 201 |
| Parties | HILARY CORMAN, Respondent, v. STEPHEN D. LAFOUNTAIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the cross motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied.
The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint. Although leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Henderson v Gulati, 270 AD2d 308 [2000]), when a proposed amendment is devoid of merit or fails to state a cause of action, leave to amend should be denied (see Guzov v Manor Lodge Holding Corp., 13 AD3d 482 [2004]; Mohan v Hollander, 303 AD2d 473 [2003]). Here, while the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to claim that she contracted with the defendant Stephen D. LaFountain personally, the contract at issue is clear and unambiguous that the plaintiff contracted with Stephen LaFountain Carpentry, LLC (hereinafter the LLC). When an agreement is clear and complete on its face, it should be enforced according to its terms without looking to extrinsic evidence to create ambiguities (see South Rd. Assoc., LLC v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 4 NY3d 272, 277 [2005]; W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). The contract further provides that any work commenced prior to the formation of the LLC and the execution of the contract is encompassed by its terms, which apply only to the LLC and not to LaFountain personally. Therefore, the plaintiff has no valid contract cause of action against LaFountain personally (see Star Video Entertainment v J & I Video Distrib., 268 AD2d 423 [2000]; Perma Pave Contr. Corp. v Paerdegat Boat & Racquet Club, 156 AD2d 550 [1989]), and the proposed amended complaint was devoid of merit.
The Supreme Court should have granted LaFountain's motion to dismiss the complaint. Since the plaintiff claims that LaFountain is the alter ego of the LLC, the LLC is a necessary party to this action (see CPLR...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lincoln Bldg. Servs. Inc. v. Dellwood Dev., Ltd.
...Mannucci v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart of Jesus, 94 A.D.3d 471, 941 N.Y.S.2d 493 [1st Dept 2012] ; Corman v. LaFountain, 38 A.D.3d 706, 835 N.Y.S.2d 201 [2d Dept 2007] ), as they shall, upon the successful invocation of the doctrine, be considered as a single personality for purpose......
-
Magazines v. McCafpery
...11 U.S.C. § 541(a); Cardinal Holdings, Ltd. v. Indotronix Intl. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 960, 962 (2d Dep't 2010); Corman v. LaFountain, 38 A.D.3d 706, 708 (2d Dep't 2007); Andrew Greenberg, Inc. v. Svane, Inc., 36 A.D.3d 1094, 1096 (3d Dep't 2007); St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 8......
-
Alphas v. Smith
...11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). See Cardinal Holdings, Ltd. v. Indotronix Intl. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 960, 962 (2d Dep't 2010); Corman v. LaFountain, 38 A.D.3d 706, 708 (2d Dep't 2007); St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 884 F.2d 688, 697, 704 (2d Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs filed their fourth am......
-
Helicon Partners, LLC v. Kim's Provision Co.
...Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Pepsico, Inc., 884 F.2d 668, 705 (2d Cir. 1989); Keene Corp., 164 B.R. at 850-52; Corman v. LaFountain, 835 N.Y.S.2d 201,202-03 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). This is why Helicon cross-moved for authority to prosecute those claims as the estate representative. At the tim......
-
Introduction to LLCS
...by an attorney under N.Y. CPLR §321(a). A limited liability company is an entity separate from its members. Corrman v. LaFountain , 835 N.Y.S. 2d 201 (N.Y. A.D. 2007). LLC was liable since it signed contract and not LLC. Equipoise PM LLC v. International Truck and Engine Corp. , 2007 WL 222......