Suite International, S.A. and its wholly-owned subsidiary U.S. Suite Corp., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. US LLC (2016)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

— U–Trend New York Investment L.P., individually and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Hospitality Suite International, S.A. and its wholly-owned subsidiary U.S. Suite Corp., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. US Suite LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Hospitality Suite International, et al., Nominal Defendants–Appellants.

2409– 2409A 2409B

Decided: December 06, 2016

Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Feinman, Kapnick, Gesmer, JJ.

Daley Law, P.C., New York (M. Teresa Daley of counsel), for U.S. Suite LLC and 440 West 41 st LLC, appellants. Sankel, Skurman & McCartin, LLP, New York (Claudio Dessberg of counsel), for Aura Investments Ltd., Hospitality Suite International, S.A. and U.S. Suite Corp., appellants. Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (Y. David Scharf of counsel), for respondent.

Order (denominated order and judgment [one paper] ), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 9, 2016, which directed distribution of the subject sales proceeds to plaintiff with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from order, same court and Justice, entered November 13, 2015, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment declaring plaintiff to be the source of certain subject funds, and from order, same court and Justice, entered April 14, 2016, which denied a defense motion for the court's recusal and related relief, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in and superseded by, respectively, the appeal from the June 9, 2016 order.

We perceive no basis for disturbing the court's order directing distribution to plaintiff of the net proceeds of the sale of the property at issue. The court properly determined that plaintiff was entitled to those proceeds based upon loans it advanced related to the acquisition of the property, along with interest due on the loans.

The court's denial of recusal was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see Mehulic v. New York Downtown Hosp., 140 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2016] ).

CLERK

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network