Flagg Court Realty Co. v. Flagg Court Owners Corp.

230 A.D.2d 740, 646 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8253
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 5, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 740 (Flagg Court Realty Co. v. Flagg Court Owners Corp.) 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
Flagg Court Realty Co. v. Flagg Court Owners Corp., 230 A.D.2d 740, 646 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 619, inter alia, to confirm an election of the Board of Directors of Flagg Court Owners Corporation held on May 15, 1995, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 22, 1995, which denied their motion to confirm the election.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners, Flagg Court Realty Co. and Lee Wallach, who sponsored the conversion of one of the respondents, Flagg Court Owners Corporation, into a cooperative corporation (hereinafter the corporation), instituted this proceeding, inter alia, to confirm an election of the Board of Directors of the corporation held on May 15, 1995. The petitioners moved to confirm the election by order to show cause dated June 9, 1995. The Supreme Court granted a stay prohibiting a new election, which was subsequently vacated on the return date of the order to show cause. In lifting the stay, the Supreme Court permitted the respondents to proceed with the June 13, 1995, meeting at which a new election was held. By order dated June 22, 1995, the Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ motion to confirm the May 15, 1995, election.

The May 15, 1995, election was conducted in violation of the offering plan and by-laws, inasmuch as the sponsor used its votes to elect all seven board members after having nominated [741]*741three sponsor-related members. Accordingly, the Supreme Court was correct in refusing to confirm the election.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Tiemann Place Realty, LLC v. 55 Tiemann Owners Corp.
141 A.D.3d 56 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Mundiya v. Beattie
2 A.D.3d 317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Fort Hamilton Development Corp. v. Bay Ridge Towers, Inc.
190 Misc. 2d 335 (New York Supreme Court, 2001)
Visutton Associates v. Anita Terrace Owners, Inc.
254 A.D.2d 295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 A.D.2d 740, 646 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagg-court-realty-co-v-flagg-court-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1996.