From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doyle v. Icon

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 7, 2013
103 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Summary

In Doyle, an LLC member with a 33% share in an LLC brought an action for judicial dissolution after being excluded from the operation of that LLC.

Summary of this case from Advanced 23, LLC v. Chambers House Partners, LLC

Opinion

2013-02-7

Keith DOYLE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ICON, LLC, doing business as “R Bar,” et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, New York (Kelly Koscuiszka of counsel), for appellants. Cooper & McCann, LLP, New Rochelle (Gary G. Cooper and Jared A. Cooper of counsel), for respondent.



Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, New York (Kelly Koscuiszka of counsel), for appellants. Cooper & McCann, LLP, New Rochelle (Gary G. Cooper and Jared A. Cooper of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, RENWICK, CLARK, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the causes of action seeking judicial dissolution and appointment of a receiver, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff's allegations that he has been systematically excluded from the operation and affairs of the company by defendants are insufficient to establish that it is no longer “reasonably practicable” for the company to carry on its business, as required for judicial dissolution under Limited Liability Company Law § 702. The allegations do not show that “the management of the entity is unable or unwilling to reasonably permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity to be realized or achieved, or [that] continuing the entity is financially unfeasible” ( see Matter of 1545 Ocean Ave., LLC, 72 A.D.3d 121, 131, 893 N.Y.S.2d 590 [2d Dept. 2010];Schindler v. Niche Media Holdings, 1 Misc.3d 713, 716, 772 N.Y.S.2d 781 [Sup.Ct., New York County 2003] ). Indeed, the allegations show that the company has been able to carry on its business since the alleged expulsion of plaintiff in 2007; the allegation that defendants failed to pay plaintiff his share of the profits and award him distributions shows that the company is financially feasible.

In view of the foregoing, there is no occasion for the appointment of a receiver ( seeLimited Liability Company Law § 703). We note that plaintiff admits that he can seek appointment of a temporary receiver under CPLR 6401(a), given his remaining causes of action.


Summaries of

Doyle v. Icon

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 7, 2013
103 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

In Doyle, an LLC member with a 33% share in an LLC brought an action for judicial dissolution after being excluded from the operation of that LLC.

Summary of this case from Advanced 23, LLC v. Chambers House Partners, LLC
Case details for

Doyle v. Icon

Case Details

Full title:Keith DOYLE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ICON, LLC, doing business as “R…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2013

Citations

103 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
959 N.Y.S.2d 200
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 797

Citing Cases

Kassab v. Kasab

Here, accepting as true the facts alleged in the petition/complaint and according the petitioner the benefit…

Kassab v. Kasab

In determining whether a limited liability company should be dissolved, pursuant to Section 702, "the court…