Extract v. Residential Board of Beaumont Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Extract v. Residential Board of Beaumont Condominium

261 A.D.2d 130, 689 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4649

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

DecidedMay 4, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 130 (Extract v. Residential Board of Beaumont Condominium) 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

Extract v. Residential Board of Beaumont Condominium, 261 A.D.2d 130, 689 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered November 30, 1998, which, inter alia, directed a hearing to assess petitioner tenant/ shareholder’s damages caused by respondent condominium Board’s failure to either waive or exercise its right of first [131]*131refusal to purchase petitioner’s apartment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that respondent’s July 2, 1998 letter to petitioner was not a request for “further information with respect to the Outside Offeror and the Sale or Lease Agreement”, as authorized by respondent’s by-laws, but an imposition of conditions upon the proposed sale not authorized by the by-laws, and not made in good faith. Since such “request” was not authorized, respondent cannot argue that the time to exercise its right of first refusal never began to run because petitioner did not comply therewith (see, Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57), and since it was not made in good faith, that judicial review thereof is precluded by the business judgment rule (see, Smukler v 12 Lofts Realty, 178 AD2d 125; Matter of Vacca v Board of Mgrs. of Primrose Lane Condominium, 251 AD2d 674). We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Tom, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered November 30, 1998, which, inter alia, directed a hearing to assess petitioner tenant/ shareholder’s damages caused by respondent condominium Board’s failure to either waive or exercise its right of first [131]*131refusal to purchase petitioner’s apartment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that respondent’s July 2, 1998 letter to petitioner was not a request for “further information with respect to the Outside Offeror and the Sale or Lease Agreement”, as authorized by respondent’s by-laws, but an imposition of conditions upon the proposed sale not authorized by the by-laws, and not made in good faith. Since such “request” was not authorized, respondent cannot argue that the time to exercise its right of first refusal never began to run because petitioner did not comply therewith (see, Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57), and since it was not made in good faith, that judicial review thereof is precluded by the business judgment rule (see, Smukler v 12 Lofts Realty, 178 AD2d 125; Matter of Vacca v Board of Mgrs. of Primrose Lane Condominium, 251 AD2d 674). We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Tom, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 130, 689 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/extract-v-residential-board-of-beaumont-condominium-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack