Turtle Bay Towers Corp. v. Welco Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turtle Bay Towers Corp. v. Welco Associates

228 A.D.2d 189, 643 N.Y.2d 95, 643 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378

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

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 189 (Turtle Bay Towers Corp. v. Welco Associates) 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

Turtle Bay Towers Corp. v. Welco Associates, 228 A.D.2d 189, 643 N.Y.2d 95, 643 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The IAS Court properly construed the definition of "total price” contained in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-702 (b) (1)—"the number of all shares in the offering multiplied by the last price per share which was offered to tenants in occupancy prior to the effective date of the plan regardless of number of sales made”—as the price in effect just prior to the effective date, and not, as defendants contend, as the [190]*190price in effect during the exclusive purchase period, i.e., the so-called "insider’s price”. While defendants refer to the legislative history of the statute to buttress their claim that the "insider price” should have been used, the statutory language, "last price per share which was offered to tenants in occupancy prior to the effective date of the plan”, is clear and unambiguous.

"A statute must be construed according to the ordinary meaning of its words (Riegert Apts. Corp. v Planning Bd., 57 NY2d 206) and resort to extrinsic matter, such as the legislative history, is inappropriate when the statutory language is unambiguous and the meaning unequivocal (Giblin v Nassau County Med. Center, 61 NY2d 67; Sega v State of New York, 60 NY2d 183; New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v Stecker, 3 NY2d 1).” (Matter of Daniel C., 99 AD2d 35, 41, affd 63 NY2d 927.)

We have examined the remaining contentions of defendants and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach,. Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The IAS Court properly construed the definition of "total price” contained in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-702 (b) (1)—"the number of all shares in the offering multiplied by the last price per share which was offered to tenants in occupancy prior to the effective date of the plan regardless of number of sales made”—as the price in effect just prior to the effective date, and not, as defendants contend, as the [190]*190price in effect during the exclusive purchase period, i.e., the so-called "insider’s price”. While defendants refer to the legislative history of the statute to buttress their claim that the "insider price” should have been used, the statutory language, "last price per share which was offered to tenants in occupancy prior to the effective date of the plan”, is clear and unambiguous.

"A statute must be construed according to the ordinary meaning of its words (Riegert Apts. Corp. v Planning Bd., 57 NY2d 206) and resort to extrinsic matter, such as the legislative history, is inappropriate when the statutory language is unambiguous and the meaning unequivocal (Giblin v Nassau County Med. Center, 61 NY2d 67; Sega v State of New York, 60 NY2d 183; New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v Stecker, 3 NY2d 1).” (Matter of Daniel C., 99 AD2d 35, 41, affd 63 NY2d 927.)

We have examined the remaining contentions of defendants and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach,. Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 189, 643 N.Y.2d 95, 643 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turtle-bay-towers-corp-v-welco-associates-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack