JFK Family Ltd. v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P.

8 Citing cases

  1. JFK Family Ltd. P'ship v. Millbrae Nat. Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P.

    169 A.D.3d 780 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the defendants' second counterclaim asserted in the answer to the fifth amended complaint is denied. The underlying dispute between the parties is summarized in our decisions and orders in the prior appeals, JFK Family L.P. v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund, 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 731, 17 N.Y.S.3d 765 and JFK Family L.P. v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 729, 17 N.Y.S.3d 875. Insofar as is pertinent to this appeal, the defendants seek in their second counterclaim to recover the attorneys' fees and related legal expenses incurred by them in defending against this action, pursuant to the contractual indemnity provision found in section 6 of the Subscription Agreement, which is one of the documents comprising the partnership agreement involving the parties.

  2. Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, searched the record and awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law Β§ 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against Haghanegi, as the parties' submissions failed to establish the plaintiff's entitlement to this relief as a matter of law (see generally JFK Family L.P. v Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 729, 731; HSBC Bank USA v Hernandez, 92 A.D.3d 843, 844). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law Β§ 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against the LLC.

  3. Golec v. Dock St. Constr., LLC

    186 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    However, the injured plaintiff, who was the only witness to the accident, testified that he was the one who turned off the concrete pump prior to entering the tub, that in his experience he had never seen an s-tube move while the concrete pump was turned off, and that he did not know what caused the s-tube to move. Since we do not know the cause of this accident, we decline the plaintiffs' request to exercise our discretion and search the record to award them summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law Β§ 241(6) (seeJFK Family L.P. v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 729, 17 N.Y.S.3d 875 ). We disagree, however, with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the Dock Street defendants' motion which was for summary judgment on the third-party causes of action for contractual and common-law indemnification.

  4. JFK Family Ltd. P'ship v. Millbrae Nat. Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P.

    169 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs. The underlying dispute between the parties is summarized in our decisions and orders in the prior appeals, JFK Family L.P. v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund, 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 731, 17 N.Y.S.3d 765 and JFK Family L.P. v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 729, 17 N.Y.S.3d 875. The plaintiffs are investors in the defendant Millbrae Natural Gas Development Fund 2005, L.P. (hereinafter the partnership).

  5. JFK Family Ltd. P'ship v. Millbrae Nat. Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P.

    169 A.D.3d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The underlying dispute between the parties is summarized in our decision and order in prior appeals, JFK Family L.P. v. Millbrae Natural Gas De v. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 731, 17 N.Y.S.3d 765 and JFK Family L.P. v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 729, 17 N.Y.S.3d 875, decided in a related action in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index No. 10591/07 (hereinafter Action No. 1). In this action (hereinafter Action No. 2), the defendants moved, inter alia, to dismiss as time-barred the first through fifth causes of action (hereinafter collectively the valuation causes of actions), which alleged that the plaintiffs were not adequately compensated for their partnership interests, insofar as those causes of action were asserted by the plaintiffs James Knott, Sr., James Knott, Jr., Carroll Knott, and Carroll Knott McGill (hereinafter collectively the opposing plaintiffs).

  6. JFK Family Ltd. P'ship v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P.

    132 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    In JFK Family L.P. v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 731, 17 N.Y.S.3d 765, this Court determined that discovery with respect to the valuation of the property tendered to the plaintiffs in exchange for their partnership interests was material and necessary to the plaintiffs' claim that their partnership interests were improperly terminated.

    The plaintiffs' involvement in the partnership is governed by a collection of documents, including, insofar as relevant here, a certain Agreement of Limited Partnership of Millbrae Natural Gas Development Fund 2005, L.P., dated July 23, 2004 (hereafter the partnership agreement).In their eighth and ninth causes of action, as amplified in the proposed amendments thereto (see JFK Family Ltd. Partnership v. Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 729, 17 N.Y.S.3d 875, 2015 WL 5945275, Appellate Division Docket Nos. 2012–07239, 2012–11374 [decided herewith] ), the plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached the terms of the partnership agreement, the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, as well as the defendants' fiduciary duties, by (1) purporting to force the plaintiffs to withdraw from the partnership for an improper purpose, namely, in retaliation for the exercise of the plaintiffs' contractual rights under the partnership agreement, and (2) tendering, in final settlement of the plaintiffs' capital accounts, various oil and gas properties worth substantially less than the value of such capital accounts.The defendants conversely assert that they were entitled, under the express terms of the partnership agreement, to require the plaintiffs to withdraw from the partnership β€œfor any reason,” and that the defendants' tender of oil and gas properties in final settlement of the plaintiffs' capital accounts was entirely proper and made in accordance with the

  7. Stephens v. Isaman

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 31412 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

    However, the Court has discretion to decide whether or not to allow a motion to amend (Chang v. First American Title Insurance Co. of New York, 20 AD3d 502 [2nd Dept. 2005]). An application to amend a pleading should be freely given, although a proposed amendment that is "palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit" should be denied (JFK Family Ltd. Partnership, v. Millbrae Natural Gas Development Fund, 132 AD3d 729, 730 [2nd Dept. 2015]; Matter of Clairol Development, LLC v. Village of Spencerport, 100 AD3d 1546 [4th Dept. 2012]). Where a copy of the amended petition is not provided and the proposed amendment has no merit, the Court's decision to deny the motion is not an abuse of discretion (Chang v. First American Title Insurance Co. of New York, Id.).

  8. Vargas v. City of N.Y.

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 30070 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

    Pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), leave to amend pleadings shall be freely given, absent surprise or prejudice to any party, so long as the proposed amendment is not "palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit." JFK Family L.P. v Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund, 2005, L.P., 132 AD3d 729, 731 (2d Dept 2015). Neither American Safety nor LIUI has alleged any prejudice which would spring from the amendment, and neither has sufficiently alleged that the amendment would be meritless.