Reza v. Khatun

Civil Practice

New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments    | SEE FULL TEXT OPINION

Judge Margo Brodie

Reza, Islam and Mannan entered into a partnership, Seond Inc., in December 2003. Between February 2004 and March 2005 Reza paid more than $1.3 million to Seond and Mannan to invest in realty. Mannan's wife Khatun instead went on a "spending spree" purportedly breaching the partnership agreement. Reza made no additional payments to Seond, and requested that it liquidate its holdings. Although Reza's 2009 complaint named only Khatun, his Nov. 10, 2011, amended complaint—asserting breaches of contract and fiduciary duty—added Mannan and Islam as defendants. District court denied defendants summary judgment on their assertion that Reza's claims were time barred. The statute of limitations period ceased on March 24, 2011 and the claims against Mannan and Islam were timely. Although Reza's March 24 letter seeking to add Mannan and Islam did not attach the proposed amended complaint, it indicated the complaint's amendment and put Mannan and Islam on notice. Given that Mannan is Khatun's husband, and that Khatun's answer—referring to Mannan and Islam—asserted an affirmative defense that Reza failed to join Mannan and Islam as necessary parties, Mannan and Islam were proper parties to Reza's action.

Welcome to ALM. You have read 0 out of 0 free articles this month

Get 2 months of unlimited access FREE

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202589134874

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.