A. Postelnik

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from the purchase of a radiology clinic.

The plaintiff claimed it was impecunious and that its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and that the merits of the complex claim could not be properly assessed at the interlocutory stage.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the total amount of $80,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from a commercial lease dispute.

The plaintiff conceded it had insufficient assets to pay a costs award but argued its claims had a good chance of success and its impoverishment was caused by the defendants' conduct.

The court found the merits could not be determined on an interlocutory basis due to disputed facts and credibility issues.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $30,000 for the corporate defendants and $15,000 for the real estate agent defendant, up to and including examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff and two defendants were partners in an income property held in trust by one defendant.

After the plaintiff demanded to be bought out, the defendant holding title sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's consent or full disclosure.

The plaintiff sued for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and an accounting, and also sued the real estate agent and brokerage.

The court found the partnership was dissolved by the plaintiff's demand, but fiduciary duties continued.

The title-holding defendant breached his duty of full disclosure but had authority to sell the property to wind up the partnership.

The sale was not improvident.

The court ordered an accounting but dismissed the claims for damages, negligence, and the claims against the real estate agent and brokerage.

In a case management attendance for five related actions arising from aborted real estate transactions, the court addressed three outstanding motions.

The moving party's motion to strike a cross-claim was adjourned sine die to allow the parties to resolve representation issues.

The moving party's motion for further documentary production was deferred, with the court noting that questions regarding additional documents should first be asked at examinations for discovery.

Finally, the responding parties' motion to approve discovery plans was granted, subject to minor amendments and final comments from a non-attending party.