Sterling v. Minskoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sterling v. Minskoff

226 A.D.2d 125, 639 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3315

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

DecidedApril 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 125 (Sterling v. Minskoff) 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

Sterling v. Minskoff, 226 A.D.2d 125, 639 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered January 12, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing (CPLR 3211 [a] [3]), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was not a partner in the partnership on whose behalf he purports to sue, and therefore does not have standing to bring a derivative suit (see, Levine v Murray Hill Manor Co., 143 AD2d 298, 301, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 995). Plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of defendant’s fiduciary duty to the partnership, wrongs that give rise only to a derivative suit on behalf of the partnership, and not a private cause of action, even though plaintiff’s interest in the partnership was allegedly diminished (see, Strain v Seven Hills Assocs., 75 AD2d 360, 371). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered January 12, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing (CPLR 3211 [a] [3]), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was not a partner in the partnership on whose behalf he purports to sue, and therefore does not have standing to bring a derivative suit (see, Levine v Murray Hill Manor Co., 143 AD2d 298, 301, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 995). Plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of defendant’s fiduciary duty to the partnership, wrongs that give rise only to a derivative suit on behalf of the partnership, and not a private cause of action, even though plaintiff’s interest in the partnership was allegedly diminished (see, Strain v Seven Hills Assocs., 75 AD2d 360, 371). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 125, 639 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-v-minskoff-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack