Gross v. Neiman

Decision Date14 February 2017
Citation147 A.D.3d 505,48 N.Y.S.3d 29
Parties Karen GROSS, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants, v. Marvin NEIMAN, et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents, M&T Bank, Defendant–Respondent, West 159th Street Associates, Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

147 A.D.3d 505
48 N.Y.S.3d 29

Karen GROSS, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants,
v.
Marvin NEIMAN, et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents,

M&T Bank, Defendant–Respondent,

West 159th Street Associates, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 14, 2017.


48 N.Y.S.3d 30

Neiman & Mairanz P.C., New York (Marvin Neiman of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

Asher Fensterheim PLLC, White Plains (Kelly Paul Peters of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

48 N.Y.S.3d 31

Loeb & Loeb, LLP, New York (Jon Hollis of counsel), for respondent.

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered May 6, 2015, which granted defendants Marvin Neiman, Gracon Associates (Gracon), Gracon Properties LLC (Properties), and Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.'s (collectively, the Gracon defendants) motion to dismiss the first, second, and fifth causes of action in the original complaint, denied their motion to vacate the notice of pendency, and granted plaintiffs' request to amend the caption to add Gracon Holdings LLC (Holdings) as a defendant, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the notice of pendency, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered October 16, 2015, as amended by order entered November 2, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the Gracon defendants' motions to vacate the notice of pendency and to dismiss the first, second, and fifth causes of action in the amended complaint, and granted defendant M&T Bank's motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the Gracon defendants' motions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against M&T Bank.

Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the first, second, and fifth causes of action in the original complaint against the Gracon defendants. Section 12(b) of the partnership agreement expressly prohibits plaintiffs, as assignees, from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Rokof Assocs. v. Vill. Place Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 21 Noviembre 2022
    ... ... the effect of Stanley's death on the partnership ... ( see Partnership Law § 62 [4] [death of any ... partner results in dissolution]; Gross v Neiman, 147 ... A.D.3d 505, 506 [1st Dept 2017] [partnership agreement ... provides for dissolution upon death of any partner]) ... ...
  • Renfro v. Herrald
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 Junio 2022
  • VFP Invs. I LLC v. Foot Locker, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 Febrero 2017
  • Renfro v. Herrald
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 Junio 2022
    ...v Sardelli, 192 A.D.2d 578, 580 [2d Dept 1993]; Walsh v Rechler, 151 A.D.2d 473, 473 [2d Dept 1989]; see generally Gross v Neiman, 147 A.D.3d 505, 507 [1st Dept 2017]; Liffiton v DiBlasi, 170 A.D.2d 994, 994 [4th Dept 1991]). Although in the complaint plaintiff requested that the property b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT