Krakauer v. Stuyvesant Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krakauer v. Stuyvesant Owners, Inc.

301 A.D.2d 450, 753 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 396

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 450 (Krakauer v. Stuyvesant Owners, 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

Krakauer v. Stuyvesant Owners, Inc., 301 A.D.2d 450, 753 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered December 14, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and class certification and granted [451]*451defendant-respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the second through seventh causes of action against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to plaintiffs argument, the inclusion of the preferential subleasing provision in the proprietary lease, although violative of Business Corporation Law § 501 (c) (see Lescht v Concord Vil. Owners Corp., 261 AD2d 449; Wapnick v Seven Park Ave. Corp., 240 AD2d 245), did not effectively divest defendant residential cooperative corporation of its basic, underlying prerogative, unambiguously set forth elsewhere in the proprietary lease, to regulate subtenancies (see Susser v 200 E. 36th Owners Corp., 262 AD2d 197). Accordingly, the motion court properly invalidated only the provision according preferential rights, leaving the corporation’s authority with respect to the regulation of subtenancies otherwise intact.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, 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 (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered December 14, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and class certification and granted [451]*451defendant-respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the second through seventh causes of action against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to plaintiffs argument, the inclusion of the preferential subleasing provision in the proprietary lease, although violative of Business Corporation Law § 501 (c) (see Lescht v Concord Vil. Owners Corp., 261 AD2d 449; Wapnick v Seven Park Ave. Corp., 240 AD2d 245), did not effectively divest defendant residential cooperative corporation of its basic, underlying prerogative, unambiguously set forth elsewhere in the proprietary lease, to regulate subtenancies (see Susser v 200 E. 36th Owners Corp., 262 AD2d 197). Accordingly, the motion court properly invalidated only the provision according preferential rights, leaving the corporation’s authority with respect to the regulation of subtenancies otherwise intact.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 450, 753 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krakauer-v-stuyvesant-owners-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack