It’s been 15 years since the Second Department’s decision in Matter of 1545 Ocean Avenue, LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 2010 NY Slip Op 00688 (2d Dept Jan. 26, 2010), which established the standard for judicial dissolution of limited liability companies.  Under that standard, a New York LLC should be judicially dissolved when the management of the company is unable or unwilling to permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity, or continuing the entity is financially unfeasible.

That standard has proved both enduring and highly fact-specific, producing over the last decade and a half a landscape of judicial decisions finding that specific conduct and circumstances do—or do not—warrant dissolution. 

I’ve also seen at least some disconnect between that standard and the real interests of many LLC members.  On the one hand, the standard focuses on two things: (i) the stated purpose of the LLC as set forth in the operating agreement, and (ii) the financial feasibility of the LLC.  On the other hand, in many cases, the “stated purpose” as set forth in the operating agreement is boilerplate that the owners never considered.  And the financial feasibility of the LLC usually is a given; people tend not to litigate over failing businesses. Most owners who resort to judicial dissolution do so for other reasons. 

Many LLC members seek judicial dissolution as a means to resolve distrust of or perceived misconduct by their co-owners.  And while there is room for consideration of those things in the “unable or unwilling” language of the dissolution standard, a court faithfully applying the 1545 Ocean Avenue standard and a party seeking his day in court about allegations of member misconduct might feel like they’re speaking different languages.

A recent decision from New York County, Otsuka v Shimura, No. 159202/2020 (Sup Ct, New York County 2025), serves as a fine springboard to highlight that disconnect, discuss the timing of an LLC dissolution claim, and take stock of the current LLC dissolution landscape.