New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Partnership Law § 115 (2026)
Parties to actions
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 115. Parties to actions. A contributor, unless he is a general partner, is not a proper party to proceedings by or against a partnership, except where the object is to enforce a limited partner's right against or liability to the partnership, and except in cases provided for in section one hundred fifteen-a of this article.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1966–2016 · leading case: Caprer v. Nussbaum, 36 A.D.3d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006).
Caprer v. Nussbaum, 36 A.D.3d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “Statutory authority to bring a derivative action is found in Business Corporation Law § 626, the Not-For-Profit Corpora *187 tion Law (see N-PCL 623) and the Partnership Law (see Partnership Law § 115). As a result, the capacity of shareholders in a cooperative apartment…”
Tzolis v. Wolff, 884 N.E.2d 1005 (N.Y. 2008). “The Legislature adopted the Commission's proposed bill in 1968 ( see L 1968, ch 496, amending Partnership Law § 115 and adding Partnership Law §§ 115-a, 115-b, 115-c).”
Bischoff v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc., 436 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “Law § 626 ; N.Y. Partnership Law § 115— a(2), (3). Before such actions were codified in statute, the courts recognized them at common law.”
Katz v. Beil, 142 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the remaining proposed derivative causes of action, which were directed against the individual defendants, were not palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit (see Business Corporation Law § 626 [a]; Partnership Law § 115; see…”
Lenz v. Associated Inns & Restaurants Co. of Am., 833 F. Supp. 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “§ 357 (1984) (authorizing derivative suit by limited partner where general partner refuses to bring action or if demand on general partners is not likely to succeed); N.Y. Partnership Law § 115 (McKinney 1990) (same).”
Colonial Realty Corp. v. Bache & Co., 358 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1966). “” N. Y. Partnership Law § 115. In the absence of a claim of insolvency of the partnership, see Klebanow v.”
Carlsberg Resources Corp. v. Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 554 F.2d 1254 (3d Cir. 1977). “N.Y. Partnership Law § 115 , quoted in 358 F.”
Credit Francais Int'l, S. A. v. Sociedad Financiera de Comercio, C. A., 128 Misc. 2d 564 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985). “(NY Partnership Law §§ 115, 115-a; see, Stevens v St.”
Weber v. King, 110 F. Supp. 2d 124 (E.D.N.Y 2000). “See also N.Y. Partnership Law § 115 — a(l) (“An action may be brought in the right of a limited partnership to procure a judgment in its favor, by a limited partner, additional limited partner, additional limited partner, or substituted limited partner.”
Bd. of Managers v. Fairways at North Hills, 150 A.D.2d 32 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “We agree with the court’s denial of the remaining branches of the bank’s motion on the ground that issues of fact are raised with respect to the amount of control the bank exercised in the business of the sponsor.”
Pappas v. Arfaras, 712 F. Supp. 307 (E.D.N.Y 1989). “there [is] diversity between the plaintiff and all the general partners of the defendant, identity of citizenship between the plaintiff and a limited partner [is] not fatal because under the applicable New York statute a limited partner “is not a proper party to proceedings by…”
In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Addressed to Sentinel Fin. Instruments, 553 F. Supp. 71 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). “For example, derivative actions on behalf of an organization may be brought by limited partners, N.Y. Partnership Law § 115 -a (McKinney Supp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.