LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

ET AL. v JENNIFER REALTY CO., &C., et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: ET AL., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I02_0072, Sponsor, Shares, Contract, Ny2d, Offering Plan, Cooperatives, Complaint, Appellate Division, Tenants, Apartments, Dismiss, Appealing, York, Cplr, Asserting, Effectuating, Allege, Conversions, Co-op Board, Majority, Affirm, Sell, Motion, Purchase, Gbl, Breach, Real Estate, Party , ContentID: 120254590

Case Documents
1 2002-06-11 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 131594
6 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 6 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SHARES
PLAINTIFFS
CONTRACT
NY2D
OFFERING PLAN
COOPERATIVES
COMPLAINT
APPELLATE DIVISION
TENANTS
APARTMENTS
DISMISS
APPEALING
YORK
CPLR
ASSERTING
EFFECTUATING
ALLEGE
CONVERSIONS
CO-OP BOARD
MAJORITY
AFFIRM
SELL
MOTION
PURCHASE
GBL
DEFENDANTS
BREACH
REAL ESTATE
PARTY


   1 No. 68
   511 West 232nd Owners Corp., et al.,
   Respondents,
   v.
   Jennifer Realty Co., &c., et al.,
   Appellants.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2002 NY Int. 72

   June 11, 2002

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Mark N. Axinn, for appellants.
   Beatrice Lesser, for respondents.
   Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc. et al.; Real Estate Board
   of New York, Inc.; Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums;
   Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, amici curiæ.
     _________________________________________________________________

   ROSENBLATT, J.:

   Pursuant to the Martin Act (General Business Law article 23-a), the
   owner of an apartment building may sponsor an Offering Plan to convert
   the building into a cooperative. Such conversions are subject to a
   complex statutory and regulatory scheme that governs the form and
   content of public offerings, public disclosure, advertising and
   criteria for determining when such a conversion becomes
   effective.(1) On this appeal, plaintiffs (the board of directors of
   the cooperative corporation and a number of individual shareholders
   and proprietary lessees) allege that the sponsor breached its
   contracts with them by retaining most of the shares in the cooperative
   after the effective date of the conversion. The central question
   before us is whether plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded a cause of
   action for breach of contract. We conclude that they have.

   The complaint recites that in 1974, defendant Arthur Wiener acquired
   the subject 66-unit rent-regulated apartment building located at 511
   West 232nd Street in The Bronx and transferred it to co-defendant
   Jennifer Realty Co., a partnership in which Wiener and his named
   co-defendants are principals. (We refer to defendants collectively as
   the sponsor.) Having obtained permission from the Attorney General in
   1987 to convert to a cooperatively-owned building under a non-eviction
   plan,(2) the sponsor began accepting offers for shares. After
SNIPPETS:
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc. et al.; Real Estate Board of New York, Inc.;
  • Pursuant to the Martin Act, the owner of an apartment building may sponsor an Offering Plan
  • Such conversions are subject to a complex statutory and regulatory scheme that governs the
  • The complaint recites that in 1974, defendant Arthur Wiener acquired the subject 66-unit
  • After receiving offers for 15% of the shares (a prerequisite under the Martin Act for
  • The sponsor then incorporated 511 West 232nd Owners Corp. (the Co-op Board), sold the
  • in 1998 the tenant-owners learned that the sponsor had rejected bona fide purchase offers
  • The tenant-owners and the Co-op Board brought this action against the sponsor, asserting that
  • In deciding the motion, Supreme Court dismissed the contract claim, finding that the Offering
  • The Appellate Division reinstated the contract cause of action, holding that the sponsor's
  • We hold that plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action for breach of contract sufficient to
  • In the posture of defendants' CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, our task is to determine whether
  • The motion must be denied if from the pleadings' four corners "factual allegations are
  • The complaint asserts that the sponsor -- by its initial Offering Plan and each of its 10
  • The complaint also claims that because a majority of apartments are still rented rather than
  • This covenant embraces a pledge that "neither party shall do anything which will have the
  • An exception exists only for cases where granting relief to a nonappealing party is necessary
  •    |