Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.

298 A.D.2d 185, 748 N.Y.S.2d 48, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9551

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 185 (Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.) 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

Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc., 298 A.D.2d 185, 748 N.Y.S.2d 48, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered July 5, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directed defendant to issue stock to plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm the grant of summary judgment upon the ground [186]*186that defendant was required, under its certificate of incorporation, to seek the approval of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal prior to redeeming shareholders’ stock, and failed to do so. There is no evidence that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal waived its right to exercise supervisory control over the redemption of stock by defendant. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered July 5, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directed defendant to issue stock to plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm the grant of summary judgment upon the ground [186]*186that defendant was required, under its certificate of incorporation, to seek the approval of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal prior to redeeming shareholders’ stock, and failed to do so. There is no evidence that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal waived its right to exercise supervisory control over the redemption of stock by defendant. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 185, 748 N.Y.S.2d 48, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blutreich-v-amalgamated-dwellings-inc-nyappdiv-2002.