In Otto v. Otto, 110 AD3d 620 [1st Dept 2013] the First Department held that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue in a derivative action because she failed "to bring her derivative claims on behalf of the Delaware limited partnerships and limited liability company 'after or in conjunction with' a successful action seeking the nullification of the certificate of cancellation." The Appellate Court cited the Delaware Court of Chancery in Matthew v. Laudamiel, for the principle that derivative claims "must be brought in the name of the LLC by a trustee or receiver appointed under 6 Del. C. 18-805, or directly by the LLC or derivatively by its members after reviving the LLC by obtaining revocation of its certificate of cancellation"