Friedland v Hickox

Annotate this Case
Friedland v Hickox 2007 NY Slip Op 09693 [46 AD3d 303] December 11, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Dion Friedland, Appellant,
v
Charles C. Hickox, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

—[*1] Kravet & Vogel LLP, New York City (Donald J. Kravet of counsel), for appellant.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP, New York City (Hagit Elul of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered January 2, 2007, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his second, third, fourth and sixth causes of action and for entry of a judgment against defendant Charles C. Hickox in the amount of $2,695,092, plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover from Hickox, a limited partner in limited partnership defendant HBLS who allegedly owes a debt to HBLS in the amount of a deficiency judgment it obtained against HBLS. Based upon the partnership documents, audited financial statements and security agreement with U.S. Trust, as well as depositions taken in prior actions and affidavits submitted on this motion, the court properly found that issues of fact exist, not only as to whether Hickox's required capital contribution to the limited partnership was waived in its entirety in exchange for his posting personal assets as collateral for a loan by U.S. Trust to the limited partnership, but also whether the return of the collateral to Hickox was either a return or distribution of a capital contribution so as to entitle plaintiff to receipt of the collateral as payment of the limited partnership's debt to him (see CPLR 5227; Revised Limited Partnership Act (Partnership Law) §§ 121-502, 121-607; Matter of Trustco Bank, N.A. v Strong, 261 AD2d 25, 27 [1999]). [*2]

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.