Kubernat v. Porkorny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kubernat v. Porkorny

304 A.D.2d 330, 756 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539

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

DecidedApril 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 330 (Kubernat v. Porkorny) 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

Kubernat v. Porkorny, 304 A.D.2d 330, 756 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2001, as amended by order and judgment, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 15, 2002, authorizing petitioner not-for-profit corporation to sell a building, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As the trial court found, petitioner makes a satisfactory showing that the proposed transaction is fair and reasonable and will promote its corporate purposes and the interests of its members (N-PCL 511). We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2001, as amended by order and judgment, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 15, 2002, authorizing petitioner not-for-profit corporation to sell a building, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As the trial court found, petitioner makes a satisfactory showing that the proposed transaction is fair and reasonable and will promote its corporate purposes and the interests of its members (N-PCL 511). We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 330, 756 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kubernat-v-porkorny-nyappdiv-2003.