Kralik v. 239 East 79th Street Owners Corp.

54 A.D.3d 267, 862 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2008 NY Slip Op 6580, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7808
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 12, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 267 (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., 54 A.D.3d 267, 862 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2008 NY Slip Op 6580, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

[268]*268Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 1, 2006, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment declaring them to be holders of unsold shares in defendant cooperative corporation, entitled to sublet without consent or fee, and enjoined defendant from interfering with such rights, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Even assuming, as the co-op argues, that the definition of “unsold shares” in paragraph 38 of the proprietary lease as certain shares issued “pursuant to” the offering plan served to incorporate by reference the specific provisions of the offering plan relied on by the co-op, nothing in the offering plan indicates that noncompliance with such provisions divests holders of unsold shares of that status (see Bestform, Inc. v Herman, 23 AD3d 253 [2005], Iv denied 6 NY3d 705 [2006]). Also even assuming, as the co-op argues, that mere intent to occupy the apartment, as opposed to actual occupancy, on the part of a holder of unsold shares terminates that status, no issue of fact exists as to plaintiffs’ intent to occupy; the co-op failed to adduce any proof of such intent even though one of the plaintiffs had been deposed, and any contention by the co-op that further disclosure might reveal evidence of such intent would reflect nothing more than an ineffectual “mere hope” insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Related

Mittman v. Netherland Gardens Corp.
55 A.D.3d 512 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.3d 267, 862 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2008 NY Slip Op 6580, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kralik-v-239-east-79th-street-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2008.