112 East 35th Street v. New York Society of New Church

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

112 East 35th Street v. New York Society of New Church

110 A.D.3d 566, 973 N.Y.S.2d 202

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 24, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.3d 566 (112 East 35th Street v. New York Society of New Church) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

112 East 35th Street v. New York Society of New Church, 110 A.D.3d 566, 973 N.Y.S.2d 202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered on or about January 9, 2012, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed without prejudice the first cause of action, which seeks a declaration with respect to the parties’ “Utilities Agreement,” and the third cause of action, which seeks money damages, and, upon the second cause of action, enjoined defendant from ceasing to provide utilities to the residential building purchased by plaintiff, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the first and third causes of action, and to remand the matter for review of the utilities agreement pursuant to Religious Corporations Law § 12, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We hold that the parties’ utilities agreement requires court approval, pursuant to Religious Corporations Law § 12 (1), because it modifies the parties’ previously approved purchase agreement (see Beacon Term. Corp. v Chemprene, Inc., 75 AD2d 350, 354 [2d Dept 1980], lv denied 51 NY2d 706 [1980]; see also Religious Corporations Law § 12 [9]).

In light of plaintiffs lack of other access to gas, steam, and electricity, we find that the injunction against defendant’s termination of utilities to the residential building should remain in effect until this matter is resolved. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered on or about January 9, 2012, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed without prejudice the first cause of action, which seeks a declaration with respect to the parties’ “Utilities Agreement,” and the third cause of action, which seeks money damages, and, upon the second cause of action, enjoined defendant from ceasing to provide utilities to the residential building purchased by plaintiff, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the first and third causes of action, and to remand the matter for review of the utilities agreement pursuant to Religious Corporations Law § 12, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We hold that the parties’ utilities agreement requires court approval, pursuant to Religious Corporations Law § 12 (1), because it modifies the parties’ previously approved purchase agreement (see Beacon Term. Corp. v Chemprene, Inc., 75 AD2d 350, 354 [2d Dept 1980], lv denied 51 NY2d 706 [1980]; see also Religious Corporations Law § 12 [9]).

In light of plaintiffs lack of other access to gas, steam, and electricity, we find that the injunction against defendant’s termination of utilities to the residential building should remain in effect until this matter is resolved. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.3d 566, 973 N.Y.S.2d 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/112-east-35th-street-v-new-york-society-of-new-church-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack