Shea v. Hambro America Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1994 |
| Citation | 606 N.Y.S.2d 198,200 A.D.2d 371 |
| Parties | Kevin D. SHEA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HAMBRO AMERICA INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MURPHY, P.J., and KUPFERMAN, ASCH and NARDELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered July 23, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the sixth and seventh causes of action of the complaint only to the extent of dismissing plaintiff Shea's individual causes of action therein; dismissed that portion of the eighth cause of action which sought damages for the alleged breach of a purported oral shareholder voting agreement; dismissed that portion of the ninth cause of action for tortious interference with contract against defendants N. Price Paschall ("Paschall") and Neil H. Powell, Jr. ("Powell"), and which referred to a Special Referee the motion by defendant Hambros PLC pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint as against Hambros PLC for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The IAS court properly dismissed, for lack of standing, plaintiff Shea's individual claims, seeking to recover sums purportedly due from defendant Hambro America Inc. to plaintiff SPM Associates on a promissory note and guarantee as set forth in the sixth and seventh causes of action, where, as here, plaintiff Shea named himself in an individual, rather than in a representative capacity, with respect to those claims, since it is settled that a partnership cause of action belongs only to the partnership itself or to the partners jointly, and that an individual member of the partnership may only sue and recover on a partnership obligation on the partnership's behalf (Stevens v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 52 A.D.2d 722, 722, 381 N.Y.S.2d 927).
Nor did the IAS court err in dismissing that portion of the eighth cause of action which sought damages against defendant Paschall for the alleged breach of a purported oral shareholder voting agreement between plaintiff Shea and defendant Paschall, since the record reveals that the purported agreement was not in writing, as specifically mandated by New York Business Corporation Law § 620(a), which requires that all voting agreements between shareholders be in writing and signed by the parties to the agreement in order to be valid and enforceable.
That portion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bldg. & Realty Inst. of Westchester & Putnam Cntys. v. New York
... BUILDING AND REALTY INSTITUTE OF WESTCHESTER AND PUTNAM COUNTIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, and ... partnership"); Shea v. Hambro America Inc., 606 ... N.Y.S.2d 198, 199 (App. Div. 1994) ... ...
-
Katz v. Beil
...187–188, 825 N.Y.S.2d 55 ; Benedict v. Whitman Breed Abbott & Morgan, 282 A.D.2d 416, 418, 722 N.Y.S.2d 586 ; Shea v. Hambro Am., 200 A.D.2d 371, 371–372, 606 N.Y.S.2d 198 ; Zacma Cleaners Corp. v. Gimbel, 149 A.D.2d 585, 586, 540 N.Y.S.2d 268 ; cf. Walsh v. Wwebnet, Inc., 116 A.D.3d 845, 8......
-
In re Cavalry Const., Inc.
...Cir.2000), Poley v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 222 A.D.2d 308, 636 N.Y.S.2d 10 (App.Div.1995), and Shea v. Hambro America Inc., 200 A.D.2d 371, 606 N.Y.S.2d 198 (App.Div.1994), to argue that Cavalry could not assert a claim against WDF because "a partner [does not] ha[ve] standing to s......
-
Barsoumian v. Univ. at Buffalo, 06-CV-831S
...of contract, he should not also have a cause of action for inducement to breach against the same defendant"); see Shea v. Hambro Am., 200 A.D.2d 371, 372 (1st Dep't 1994). Plaintiff argues that Dr. Hassett signed the employment agreement as an agent of UB and/or UMRS. An agent or employee o......