Qlisanr, LLC v. Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc.

51 A.D.3d 651, 857 N.Y.S.2d 234
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 6, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 651 (Qlisanr, LLC v. Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, 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
Qlisanr, LLC v. Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 651, 857 N.Y.S.2d 234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, in effect, that the defendant Ahron Ebert failed to properly exercise his right of first refusal to purchase the assets of the defendants Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc., Hollis Park Holding, LLC, and Hollis Park Realty, LLC, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered March 1, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment on their cause of action for declaratory relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[652]*652The plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their cause of action for declaratory relief. Triable issues of fact exist as to, inter alia, whether the respondent Ahron Ebert improperly sought to exercise his right of first refusal by seeking to purchase only the assets of the defendant Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc. (see Laramie Springtree Corp. v Equity Residential Props. Trust, 303 AD2d 464 [2003]), or whether, on the other hand, he properly exercised his right of first refusal by agreeing to purchase all of the assets of the defendants Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc., Hollis Park Holding, LLC, and Hollis Park Realty, LLC (hereinafter collectively the Company), pursuant to the agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their cause of action for declaratory relief was properly denied. In light of this determination we need not examine the sufficiency of Ebert’s opposing papers (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Kuri v Bhattacharya, 44 AD3d 718 [2007]; cf., Yudell Trust I v API Westchester Assoc., 227 AD2d 471, 473 [1996]). Spolzino, J.P., Lifson, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hammond v. Smith
New York Supreme Court, 2016
In re Mercer
113 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
2632 Realty Development Corp. v. 299 Main St., LLC
94 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re the Estate of Chin
79 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.3d 651, 857 N.Y.S.2d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qlisanr-llc-v-hollis-park-manor-nursing-home-inc-nyappdiv-2008.