Nagdimon v. Mainstay Cooperative Section Two, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagdimon v. Mainstay Cooperative Section Two, Inc.

158 A.D.2d 452, 551 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1275

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A.D.2d 452 (Nagdimon v. Mainstay Cooperative Section Two, Inc.) 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

Nagdimon v. Mainstay Cooperative Section Two, Inc., 158 A.D.2d 452, 551 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff has established that the occupancy agreement entered into between her parents and the defendant cooperative corporation did not require that she reside in her parents’ apartment before she, as their legatee, could become a member of the defendant cooperative. Moreover, the defendant has failed to establish that the purported amendment to the occupancy agreement, which imposed such a requirement, was [453]*453effective as against the plaintiff or her parents. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment compelling the defendant to transfer the shares in question to her. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff has established that the occupancy agreement entered into between her parents and the defendant cooperative corporation did not require that she reside in her parents’ apartment before she, as their legatee, could become a member of the defendant cooperative. Moreover, the defendant has failed to establish that the purported amendment to the occupancy agreement, which imposed such a requirement, was [453]*453effective as against the plaintiff or her parents. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment compelling the defendant to transfer the shares in question to her. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 452, 551 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagdimon-v-mainstay-cooperative-section-two-inc-nyappdiv-1990.