Opinion
October 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).
There was no need for plaintiffs to bring their derivative claims by "secur[ing] the initiation of such action" through demand upon the Rehabilitator of Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. ("MBL"), since MBL was not the general partner of the magazine partnership at issue (Partnership Law § 115-a). Moreover, plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that any such demand upon the general partner, Mutual Benefit Financial Service Management Co. ("FIMSCO"), would have been futile since, based on the allegations against FIMSCO, FIMSCO would have had to bring suit against itself (see, Barr v. Wackman, 36 N.Y.2d 371, 381; Curreri v. Verni, 156 A.D.2d 420).
We have considered all other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.