Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KAPITUS SERVICING, INC. formerly known as Colonial Funding Network, Inc., as servicing provider for TVT Capital, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. EPAZZ, INC. doing business as Epazz doing business as Auto Hire et al., Defendants–Appellants, John Does 1–10, Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on May 31, 2023, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its claims and striking defendants’ counterclaim and affirmative defenses, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint or alternatively for summary judgment on their counterclaim and dismissing plaintiff's claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
This action was not subject to dismissal for lack of capacity, for substantially the same reasons stated in our recent decision in (Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v. MS Health, Inc., 221 A.D.3d 504, 505, 201 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2023]). Regardless of whether TVT Capital LLC, a foreign limited liability company, was barred from initiating suit in New York (see Limited Liability Company Law § 802[b][i]), plaintiff's ability to bring suit in New York is not in dispute. Notwithstanding its status as a servicing agent for TVT, Kapitus was a signatory to the subject settlement agreement and had a pecuniary interest in the underlying financing agreements and was thus a “real party in interest” entitled to maintain this action in its own name (see CPLR 1004; Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Pro Travel, Inc., 239 A.D.2d 233, 234, 657 N.Y.S.2d 654 [1st Dept. 1997]). Kapitus also indisputably had the right to bring suit on TVT's behalf, and a foreign limited liability company's noncompliance with filing requirements “shall not limit or impair ․ the right of any other party to maintain any action or special proceeding on any such contract, act or omission” (see Limited Liability Company Law § 802[b][i]).
With respect to the summary judgment motions, the motion court correctly concluded that defendants did not comply with their obligations under ¶ 7 of the settlement agreement such that plaintiff's obligation to remove liens was triggered. It is undisputed that defendants did not make all payments due under the settlement agreement within the first year it was in effect, nor did they cure these defaults within this period.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2651
Decided: October 01, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)