Kralik v. 239 East 79th Street Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kralik v. 239 East 79th Street Owners Corp.

4 A.D.3d 144, 771 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1230

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 144 (Kralik v. 239 East 79th Street 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

Kralik v. 239 East 79th Street Owners Corp., 4 A.D.3d 144, 771 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered September 26, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and declared plaintiffs not to be “holders of unsold shares” in the cooperative, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs contend that they are holders of unsold shares by virtue of their compliance with paragraph 38 (a) of the proprietary lease. However, such a provision, alone, “does not create rights [as a holder], it merely extinguishes them” (Craig v Riverview E. Owners, 156 AD2d 157, 158 [1989]). There must also be compliance with regulatory requirements pertaining to such holders (see Pacella v 107 W. 25th St. Corp., 271 AD2d 342 [2000]).

Plaintiffs concede that they never registered as a broker (13 NYCRR 18.3 [w] [10]), and failed to submit sufficient evidence that the sponsor had guaranteed their obligations under the proprietary lease (§ 18.3 [w] [3]). Thus, as a matter of law, they never became holders of unsold shares. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered September 26, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and declared plaintiffs not to be “holders of unsold shares” in the cooperative, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs contend that they are holders of unsold shares by virtue of their compliance with paragraph 38 (a) of the proprietary lease. However, such a provision, alone, “does not create rights [as a holder], it merely extinguishes them” (Craig v Riverview E. Owners, 156 AD2d 157, 158 [1989]). There must also be compliance with regulatory requirements pertaining to such holders (see Pacella v 107 W. 25th St. Corp., 271 AD2d 342 [2000]).

Plaintiffs concede that they never registered as a broker (13 NYCRR 18.3 [w] [10]), and failed to submit sufficient evidence that the sponsor had guaranteed their obligations under the proprietary lease (§ 18.3 [w] [3]). Thus, as a matter of law, they never became holders of unsold shares. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 144, 771 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kralik-v-239-east-79th-street-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack