Heitman Credit Acquisition XXIII, LLC v. Meadow Partners LLC

<div>Heitman Credit Acquisition XXIII, LLC v Meadow Partners LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02923 <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Heitman Credit Acquisition XXIII, LLC v Meadow Partners LLC</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 02923</p> <p>May 12, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>Heitman Credit Acquisition XXIII, LLC, Respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Meadow Partners LLC, et al., Appellants.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: May 12, 2026</p> <p>Index No. 659052/24|Appeal No. 6571|Case No. 2025-07120|</p> <p>Before: Renwick, P.J., Friedman, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, O'neill Levy, JJ. </p> <div> <p>Cole Schotz P.C., New York (Arnold P. Picinich of counsel), for appellants.</p> <p>Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLC, New York (Eric N. Whitney of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered October 28, 2025, which denied defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) and (7) to dismiss the amended complaint's remaining cause of action alleging breach of contract predicated on an alter ego theory, or, in the alternative, for a stay of the action pursuant to CPLR 2201 and 3211 (a)(4), unanimously modified, to the extent of granting a stay of this action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) pending a resolution of the</p> <p>related action entitled <i>Stier 109 LLC, et al. v 109 South 5 Property LLC, et al.</i>, index No. 653204/2022, pending before another Justice in Supreme Court, New York County, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.</p> <p>In view of the foregoing, we decline to address the merits of this appeal.</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER</p> <p>OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.</p> <p>ENTERED: May 12, 2026</p> </div> <div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div> </div>