Lescht v. Concord Village Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lescht v. Concord Village Owners Corp.

261 A.D.2d 449, 687 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4781

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

DecidedMay 10, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 449 (Lescht v. Concord Village 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

Lescht v. Concord Village Owners Corp., 261 A.D.2d 449, 687 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant’s termination of the plaintiffs right to sublet his cooperative apartment is void, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated April 23, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment. The record discloses an issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated Business Corporation Law § 501 (c) by imposing restrictions on the subletting of apartments which may not have been applied equally to shares allocated to apartments it acquired through foreclosure (see, Wapnick v Seven Park Ave. Corp., 240 AD2d 245). In this regard, we note that the record is devoid of any evidence to substantiate the defendant’s claim that it does not sublet the apartments it has acquired through foreclosure, but directly leases them to tenants on its own account. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant’s termination of the plaintiffs right to sublet his cooperative apartment is void, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated April 23, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment. The record discloses an issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated Business Corporation Law § 501 (c) by imposing restrictions on the subletting of apartments which may not have been applied equally to shares allocated to apartments it acquired through foreclosure (see, Wapnick v Seven Park Ave. Corp., 240 AD2d 245). In this regard, we note that the record is devoid of any evidence to substantiate the defendant’s claim that it does not sublet the apartments it has acquired through foreclosure, but directly leases them to tenants on its own account. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 449, 687 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lescht-v-concord-village-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack