| Matter of MHS Venture Mgt. Corp. v Utilisave, LLC |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04906 [63 AD3d 840] |
| June 9, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of MHS Venture Management Corp.,Appellant, v Utilisave, LLC, Respondent. |
—[*1] Fox Horan & Camerini LLP, New York, N.Y. (Oleg Rivkin of counsel), forrespondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 701 for the dissolutionof Utilisave, LLC, the petitioner appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, WestchesterCounty (Rudolph, J.), entered April 21, 2008, which denied the petition, and (2), as limited by itsbrief, from so much of an order of the same court entered August 4, 2008, as denied its motion,in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the order entered April 21, 2008, and dismissthe proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Ordered that the order entered August 4, 2008, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thelaw, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, the order entered April 21, 2008, isvacated, and the proceeding is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 21, 2008, is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, in light of our determination on the appeal from the order entered August 4,2008.
MHS Venture Management Corp. (hereinafter MHS), is a member of Utilisave, LLC(hereinafter Utilisave), a limited liability corporation which was formed in Delaware. MHSbrought this proceeding for a judicial dissolution of Utilisave contending, inter alia, thatUtilisave was unable to operate as an ongoing concern. In an order entered April 21, 2008, theSupreme Court denied the petition, finding that MHS had failed to make a prima facie showingthat Utilisave was unable to operate as an ongoing concern.
MHS then moved to vacate the order entered April 21, 2008, asserting that, subsequent tothe court's denial of the petition for failure to make a prima facie case, it learned that the courtlacked subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding to dissolve a foreign limited liabilitycompany. Desirous of bringing a dissolution proceeding in Delaware, but concerned that itwould be bound by the order denying the petition for failure to make a prima facie case, MHSmoved to vacate the order entered April 21, 2008, and requested that the proceeding instead bedismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A claim for dissolution of a foreign limited liability company is one over which the New[*2]York courts lack subject matter jurisdiction (see Rimawi v Atkins, 42 AD3d799 [2007]; Matter of Porciello v Sound Moves, 253 AD2d 467 [1998]; Matterof Warde-McCann v Commex, Ltd., 135 AD2d 541 [1987]). "[A] court's lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is not waivable, but 'may be [raised] at any stage of the action, and the courtmay, ex mero motu [on its own motion], at any time, when attention is called to the facts,refuse to proceed further and dismiss the action' " (Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown,89 NY2d 714, 718 [1997], quoting Robinson v Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 112 NY 315,324 [1889]).
"A judgment or order issued without subject matter jurisdiction is void, and that defect maybe raised at any time and may not be waived" (Editorial Photocolor Archives v GrangerCollection, 61 NY2d 517, 523 [1984]). As such, the order entered April 21, 2008, whichdenied the petition on the merits is void, the motion to vacate that order should have beengranted, and the proceeding must instead be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.