Board of Managers of York River House Condominium v. Kinney York Avenue, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of York River House Condominium v. Kinney York Avenue, Inc.

35 A.D.3d 160, 825 N.Y.S.2d 49

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 160 (Board of Managers of York River House Condominium v. Kinney York Avenue, 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

Board of Managers of York River House Condominium v. Kinney York Avenue, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 160, 825 N.Y.S.2d 49 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered January 20, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CELR 3211 to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[161]*161The corporate transaction did not trigger the right of first refusal set forth in article X, section 2 of plaintiffs bylaws; the merger and acquisition and subsequent transfer of title to the subject garage unit to an affiliate did not constitute a bona fide sale to a third party for consideration (see Torrey Delivery v Chautauqua Truck Sales & Serv., 47 AD2d 279 [1975]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, particularly with respect to the interpretation of contracts, and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams 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 (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered January 20, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CELR 3211 to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[161]*161The corporate transaction did not trigger the right of first refusal set forth in article X, section 2 of plaintiffs bylaws; the merger and acquisition and subsequent transfer of title to the subject garage unit to an affiliate did not constitute a bona fide sale to a third party for consideration (see Torrey Delivery v Chautauqua Truck Sales & Serv., 47 AD2d 279 [1975]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, particularly with respect to the interpretation of contracts, and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 160, 825 N.Y.S.2d 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-york-river-house-condominium-v-kinney-york-avenue-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack