Lipper Holdings v. Trident Holdings

1 A.D.3d 170, 766 N.Y.S.2d 561, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11889
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by90 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 170 (Lipper Holdings v. Trident Holdings) 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
Lipper Holdings v. Trident Holdings, 1 A.D.3d 170, 766 N.Y.S.2d 561, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

[171]*171Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered April 11, 2003, which, inter alia, approved in part petitioner’s plan for distribution of the net cash assets of the investment fund limited partnerships, and held that the general partner must repay certain incentive compensation, that it must allocate negative balances in the limited partners’ capital accounts to its own account, and that it should be replaced as the liquidating trustee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with Supreme Court’s cogent analysis of the limited partnership agreements. Reading the agreements as a whole (Rentways, Inc. v O’Neill Milk & Cream Co., 308 NY 342, 347 [1955]), the reasonable discretion accorded to the general partner to revalue the limited partners’ capital accounts at the end of an accounting period is appropriately construed to encompass the correction of erroneous historical values. Restricting the exercise of such discretion to the final accounting period, as urged by those limited partners opposing the distribution plan, would bestow a windfall on certain limited partners and unfairly permit the general partner to retain incentive compensation, based entirely on phantom profits. A contract should not be interpreted to produce a result that is absurd (see Tougher Heating & Plumbing Co. v State of New York, 73 AD2d 732 [1979]), commercially unreasonable (see Elsky v Hearst Corp., 232 AD2d 310, 311 [1996]; Madison Murray Assoc. v Perlbinder, 215 AD2d 204 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 810 [1996]) or contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties (see 833 N. Corp. v Tashlik & Assoc., 256 AD2d 535, 537 [1998]).

We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Moghtaderi v. Apis Capital Advisors, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 06548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Wildlife Preserves v. Romero
Second Circuit, 2025
U.S. Bank N.A. v. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 34538(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Flynn v. McGraw Hill LLC
120 F.4th 1157 (Second Circuit, 2024)
Tuckahoe Realty LLC v. 241 E. 76 Tenants Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 04937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
GCA Advisors, LLC v. Intersections, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 04359 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Iberdrola Energy Projects v. Oaktree Capital Mgt. L.P.
2024 NY Slip Op 03798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of 195 B Owner LLC v. Anthropologie, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 03073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
NCCMI, Inc. v. Bersin Props., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 01161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Giray v. Ulukaya
181 N.Y.S.3d 93 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Magliocco v. MKB Family, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 06548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.3d 170, 766 N.Y.S.2d 561, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipper-holdings-v-trident-holdings-nyappdiv-2003.