Matter of Bradbeer v. Schneiderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Bradbeer v. Schneiderman

134 A.D.3d 516, 21 N.Y.S.3d 245

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

Docket16411 153451/13

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 516 (Matter of Bradbeer v. Schneiderman) 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

Matter of Bradbeer v. Schneiderman, 134 A.D.3d 516, 21 N.Y.S.3d 245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered July 10, 2014, vacating respondent Attorney General’s determination, dated December 17, 2012, which denied the petition for the return of a down payment on a condominium, and awarding petitioners the return of their down payment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly found that the petition was not time-barred since it was filed within four months after the issuance of the determination by which petitioners were aggrieved (see Matter of Cowan v Kelly, 89 AD3d 572 [1st Dept 2011]).

The court correctly found that the determination was arbitrary and capricious. An amendment to the offering plan contained changes to the plan that were materially adverse to the purchasers, entitling the purchasers to rescission of the *517 purchase agreement and the return of their down payment (see 13 NYCKR 20.5 [a] [5]). Among these changes was the addition of legal and equitable remedies, including specific performance, not previously available to the sponsor (respondent Fifth on the Park Condo), in the event of a default by a purchaser. Contrary to Fifth on the Park Condo’s contention, these remedies were applicable to petitioners. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered July 10, 2014, vacating respondent Attorney General’s determination, dated December 17, 2012, which denied the petition for the return of a down payment on a condominium, and awarding petitioners the return of their down payment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly found that the petition was not time-barred since it was filed within four months after the issuance of the determination by which petitioners were aggrieved (see Matter of Cowan v Kelly, 89 AD3d 572 [1st Dept 2011]).

The court correctly found that the determination was arbitrary and capricious. An amendment to the offering plan contained changes to the plan that were materially adverse to the purchasers, entitling the purchasers to rescission of the *517 purchase agreement and the return of their down payment (see 13 NYCKR 20.5 [a] [5]). Among these changes was the addition of legal and equitable remedies, including specific performance, not previously available to the sponsor (respondent Fifth on the Park Condo), in the event of a default by a purchaser. Contrary to Fifth on the Park Condo’s contention, these remedies were applicable to petitioners. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 516, 21 N.Y.S.3d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-bradbeer-v-schneiderman-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack