Integrated Urban Holdings, LLC v. Vornado Harlem Park LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Integrated Urban Holdings, LLC v. Vornado Harlem Park LLC

140 A.D.3d 460, 31 N.Y.S.3d 874

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 7, 2016

Docket1403 652138/13

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 460 (Integrated Urban Holdings, LLC v. Vornado Harlem Park LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Integrated Urban Holdings, LLC v. Vornado Harlem Park LLC, 140 A.D.3d 460, 31 N.Y.S.3d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2015, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim under Delaware law (see GMG Capital Invs., LLC v Athenian Venture Partners I, L.P, 36 A3d 776, 780 [Del 2012]). Plaintiffs were not entitled to a profit distribution under the parties’ unambiguous agreement after the property, that was the subject of the agreement, was sold for a loss, taking into account the developer defendants’ capital contributions to the company formed to acquire and sell the property. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the amounts paid by the developer defendants to acquire the property were properly considered capital contributions under the plain meaning of the agreement.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 30, 2015, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim under Delaware law (see GMG Capital Invs., LLC v Athenian Venture Partners I, L.P, 36 A3d 776, 780 [Del 2012]). Plaintiffs were not entitled to a profit distribution under the parties’ unambiguous agreement after the property, that was the subject of the agreement, was sold for a loss, taking into account the developer defendants’ capital contributions to the company formed to acquire and sell the property. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the amounts paid by the developer defendants to acquire the property were properly considered capital contributions under the plain meaning of the agreement.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 460, 31 N.Y.S.3d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/integrated-urban-holdings-llc-v-vornado-harlem-park-llc-nyappdiv-2016.