Casita, LP v Maplewood Equity Partners (Offshore) Ltd.

Annotate this Case
Casita, LP v MapleWood Equity Partners (Offshore) Ltd. 2009 NY Slip Op 01849 [60 AD3d 488] March 12, 2009 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Casita, LP, Respondent,
MapleWood Equity Partners (Offshore) Ltd., Appellant. (And Another Action.)

—[*1] Stevens & Lee, P.C., New York (Chester B. Salomon of counsel), for appellant.

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York (Martin E. Karlinsky of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered January 4, 2008, which granted plaintiff's cross motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from declaring or holding plaintiff in default under the parties' articles of association and subscription agreement, or acting upon any default by plaintiff, as a consequence of plaintiff's refusal to fund certain capital calls, and order, same court and Justice, entered July 3, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff's cross motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaims based on two of the capital calls, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff's application for preliminary injunctive relief upon its clear showing of a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that defendant's calls for capital contributions (capital calls) were not authorized under the controlling articles of association and subscription agreement, that plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury unless the relief sought was granted, and that the balancing of the equities lies in favor of plaintiff (see W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517 [1981]). The record evidence establishes that defendant's capital calls for litigation expenses and for "Follow-on Investments" were untimely, causing the potential for plaintiff's default and the loss of plaintiff's voting power and decision-making rights appurtenant to its shares.

Since the documentary evidence conclusively establishes that the capital calls issued for Follow-on Investments were untimely, the court properly granted plaintiff's cross motion to [*2]dismiss defendant's counterclaims for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to issue those capital calls. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Acosta and Renwick, JJ. [See 17 Misc 3d 1137(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52322(U).]

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.