In re Charney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charney

233 A.D.2d 147, 649 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11480

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered September 1, 1995, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application to turn over a certain subscription agreement held by respondents, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As a judgment debtor, appellant’s "insider” rights to purchase the subject cooperative apartment are rights under an executory contract that the IAS Court properly found to constitute property within the meaning of CPLR 5201 (b), and thus may be the subject of enforcement proceedings (see, ABKCO Indus, v Apple Films, 39 NY2d 670).

The IAS Court also properly found that there existed no agreement by counsel in certain related Florida litigation that prevented petitioner from proceeding herein. Nor did the de[148]*148termination herein confer rights to a prospective purchaser superior to those contained in the subscription agreement. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered September 1, 1995, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application to turn over a certain subscription agreement held by respondents, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As a judgment debtor, appellant’s "insider” rights to purchase the subject cooperative apartment are rights under an executory contract that the IAS Court properly found to constitute property within the meaning of CPLR 5201 (b), and thus may be the subject of enforcement proceedings (see, ABKCO Indus, v Apple Films, 39 NY2d 670).

The IAS Court also properly found that there existed no agreement by counsel in certain related Florida litigation that prevented petitioner from proceeding herein. Nor did the de[148]*148termination herein confer rights to a prospective purchaser superior to those contained in the subscription agreement. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

In re Charney, 233 A.D.2d 147, 649 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

233 A.D.2d 147 (In re Charney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related