We’ve taken a look at Saviano v Corniccelo 2015 NY Slip Op 31447(U) August 3, 2015
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 153168/2014 Judge: Kelly A. O’Neill Levy for the question of statute of limitations. Now, when might an individual sue when he has already given his rights over to an LLC ?
On a motion to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR 3211, the court’s “task is to determine whether plaintiffs’ pleadings state a cause of aetion.” 51 I W 232nd Owners Corp. v .Jenn!fer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 (2002). The court must construe Plaintiffs’ pleadings liberally, see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 (1994); CPLR 3026, and accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and any submissions in opposition to the dismissal motion. 5 See 51 I W 232nd, 98 NY2d at 152. The Court must accord Plaintiffs “the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.” Leon, 84 NY2d at 87-88. The dismissal motion must be denied if, from the pleading’s “four corners, factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law.” Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 (1977).
Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(3), a defendant may seek dismissal of an action where “the party asserting the cause of action has not legal capacity to sue.” See also Hecht v Andover Assoc. Mgt. Corp., 114 AD3d 638, 640 (2d Dept 2014). Standing is a threshold determination that the plaintiff has “an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request.” Caprer v Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176, 182 (2d Dept 2006). “A plaintiff generally has standing only to assert claims on behalf of himself or herself.” Id. Under longstanding common law, a court has “no inherent power to right a wrong unless thereby the civil, property or personal rights of the plaintiff in the action or the petitioner in the proceeding are affected.” Socy. of Plastics Indus., Inc. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772 (1991 )(internal citations omitted). In this regard, Defendants argue that Saviano, having assigned his rights and interests in the Contract to the LLC, never actually owned the Building, and as such cannot maintain any claims which flow “exclusively” from losses sustained by the LLC. (Defendants’ Memorandum of Law, dated Sept. 11, 2014, p. 14 ). The court disagrees. Defendants’ position interprets the standing issue too narrowly. The appropriate inquiry is whether Saviano has been aggrieved by Defendants’ actions such that he should be “allowed access to the courts to adjudicate the merits” of his individual claims. Caprer, 36 AD3d at 182. Assuming Defendants failed to advise Saviano of the air rights issue and the existence of the title report before the closing, and Saviano consequently lost the opportunity to exercise a termination clause in the Contract of Sale and the ability to live with his family in the Planned Duplex, there are sufficient facts to “cast [Saviano’s individual claims] in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution” such that Saviano has standing to maintain them. Schlesinger v Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 us 208, 220-221 (1974). “