1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 216 A.D.3d
  5. 216 A.D.3d 447 (2023)
 

ALVAREZ & MARSHAL VALUATION SERVS., LLC v. SOLAR ECLIPSE INV. FUND III, LLC

Index No. 653123/21. Appeal No. 206. Case No. 2022-03083.

216 A.D.3d 447 (2023)

189 N.Y.S.3d 167

2023 NY Slip Op 02449

Alvarez & Marshal Valuation Services, LLC, Appellant, v. Solar Eclipse Investment Fund III, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided May 9, 2023.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York ( Kerrin T. Klein of counsel), for appellant.

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York ( Justin Y.K. Chu of counsel), for Solar Eclipse Investment Fund III, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund IV, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund V, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund VI, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund X, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XI, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XII, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XV, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XVI, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XVII, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XVIII, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XIX, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XXI, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XXII, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XXIII, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XXIV, LLC, People's United Bank, N.A., People's United Financial, Inc., DV VNB Community Renewables Fund, LLC and DV VNB Community Renewables Fund III, LLC, respondents.

Reed Smith LLP, New York ( John C. Scalzo of counsel), for Solar Eclipse Investment Fund VII, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund VIII, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XIV, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XXVII, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XXXII, LLC, Solar Eclipse Investment Fund XXXV, LLC and ADHI-Solar LLC, respondents.

Concur—Renwick, A.P.J., Kapnick, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Higgitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered on or about June 10, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as against 24 of the defendants (dismissed defendants) pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) and (8), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction over the dismissed defendants (

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases