Opinion
8762 Index 656188/16
03-21-2019
Howard J. KAPLAN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. LADENBURG THALMANN & CO., INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Signature Bank, Defendant. Stanley S. Arkin, et al., Intervenor Defendants–Respondents.
Kaplan Rice LLP, New York (Michelle A. Rice of counsel), for appellants. Philip S. Ross P.C., New York (Philip S. Ross of counsel), for Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., Howard M. Lorber and Richard J. Lampen, respondents. Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York (Michael L. Cook of counsel), for Stanley S. Arkin and Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP, respondents.
Kaplan Rice LLP, New York (Michelle A. Rice of counsel), for appellants.
Philip S. Ross P.C., New York (Philip S. Ross of counsel), for Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., Howard M. Lorber and Richard J. Lampen, respondents.
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New York (Michael L. Cook of counsel), for Stanley S. Arkin and Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP, respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2017, which, inter alia, granted defendants Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc., Howard M. Lorber and Richard J. Lampen's and intervenor defendants Stanley S. Arkin and Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP's motions to dismiss the complaint as against them, deemed an appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered November 20, 2017 ( CPLR 5520[c] ), dismissing the complaint as against said defendants and intervenors, and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The complaint fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs do not identify any provision in the lease that was breached by their former landlord, defendant Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (see Transit Funding Assoc., LLC v. Capital One Equip. Fin. Corp. , 149 A.D.3d 23, 48 N.Y.S.3d 110 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Nor does the draw-down on the letter of credit—the method by which the lease provided for the rent to be collected—constitute a fraudulent conveyance, conversion, or an act in furtherance of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty (see Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. v. Signature Bank , 128 A.D.3d 36, 45, 6 N.Y.S.3d 33 [1st Dept. 2015] ). In view of the foregoing, the declaratory judgment and tortious interference claims also fail.
Plaintiffs' argument that our prior orders enjoined the payment of rent from intervenor Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP accounts and barred the landlord from enforcing the lease's obligation against the firm are without merit, and the distribution of partnership shares among plaintiffs and their former partners will be determined in that related action (see Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v. Kaplan , 138 A.D.3d 415, 27 N.Y.S.3d 865 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v. Kaplan , 120 A.D.3d 422, 991 N.Y.S.2d 597 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.