From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE v. KLAR

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 7, 2000
278 A.D.2d 39 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 7, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered July 10, 2000, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion to vacate a deficiency judgment entered against him on default, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Stephen Vlock, for plaintiff-respondent.

Michael H. Maizes, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.


Defendant's claim that plaintiff is a foreign limited partnership doing business in New York without authority, and is therefore maintaining this action in violation of Partnership Law § 121-907(a), is unsupported by any evidence of systematic and regular activity (see, Alicanto, S.A. v. Woolverton, 129 A.D.2d 601, 602; cf., Partnership Law § 121-902[b]). Nor does defendant offer any persuasive evidence on valuation.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE v. KLAR

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 7, 2000
278 A.D.2d 39 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE v. KLAR

Case Details

Full title:CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE, L.P., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RONALD M. KLAR…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 7, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 39 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 525

Citing Cases

Valsirv Realty Co. Ltd., v. Tenenbaum

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the action. The defendants' claim that…

Star201, LLC v. Martinez

The plaintiff's submissions in opposition to the cross motion are insufficient to raise an issue of fact as…