From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kramer v. Danalis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 2008
49 A.D.3d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Summary

holding that operating agreement did not supersede interest holders' agreement because it "was neither the subject of negotiation between defendant and Irving nor pertained to precisely the same subject matter"

Summary of this case from Lilis Energy, Inc. v. Blackwell

Opinion

No. 2830.

March 4, 2008.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered July 17, 2006, granting the motion of plaintiff's decedent Virginia Casey Bush for partial summary judgment, declaring that she had the exclusive right to manage the subject property pursuant to an operating agreement, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the motion denied, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Odesser, Schillinger Finsterwald, LLP, White Plains (Peter Schillinger of counsel), for appellant.

Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York (Kendyl Hanks and Kenneth J. Rubenstein of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.


There was no basis for the court to consider summary judgment on plaintiff's unpleaded claim for enforcement of the operating agreement. Summary judgment may be awarded on an unpleaded cause of action only if the proof supports such a claim and if the opposing party has not been misled to its prejudice ( Weinstock v Handler, 254 AD2d 165, 166).

Here, the amended complaint does not even make reference to the operating agreement, and in fact seeks to have all the agreements declared void, which is contradictory to the relief actually granted. Furthermore, even if it were appropriate to consider the unpleaded claim, summary judgment would not lie. The court erred in finding that a February 2002 interest holders' agreement between defendant and plaintiff's decedent Irving Bush was superseded by a subsequent operating agreement dated October 4, 2002, which was neither the subject of negotiation between defendant and Irving nor pertained to precisely the same subject matter.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Kramer v. Danalis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 2008
49 A.D.3d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

holding that operating agreement did not supersede interest holders' agreement because it "was neither the subject of negotiation between defendant and Irving nor pertained to precisely the same subject matter"

Summary of this case from Lilis Energy, Inc. v. Blackwell

reversing award of summary judgment on an unpleaded cause of action to enforce an agreement where the complaint made no reference thereto and the complaint sought contradictory relief, viz., to have all agreements declared void

Summary of this case from Pludeman v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc.
Case details for

Kramer v. Danalis

Case Details

Full title:ARI KRAMER, as Administrator of the Estate of IRVING T. BUSH, Deceased…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1836
854 N.Y.S.2d 112

Citing Cases

You Jie Zhu v. Beacon Int'l, Inc.

This requirement 'is intended to show the court precisely what the parties' positions are'" (Moscato v City…

Wirth v. Chambers-Greenwich Tenants, Corp.

The causes of action enumerated in the Third Amended Complaint are sufficient to apprise defendants of the…