Woo v. Irving Tenants Corp.

276 A.D.2d 380, 714 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10647
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 19, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 380 (Woo v. Irving Tenants 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
Woo v. Irving Tenants Corp., 276 A.D.2d 380, 714 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about August 12, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly determined that because plaintiff was a mere contract vendee of shares in defendant residential cooperative corporation and, accordingly, not a party to, or a third-party beneficiary of, the proprietary lease between the cooperative corporation and the owner of contracted for shares, he was without standing to enforce the proprietary lease against the cooperative or its president, defendant Briggs (see, GSG Holdings v Multi Boro Realty Corp., 240 AD2d 159, 160; Sims v Darwood Mgt, 147 AD2d 373, 376-377). Moreover, even if plaintiff had possessed standing to sue upon the proprietary lease, the disputed actions of the cooperative in rejecting him as a purchaser of its shares were within the protective ambit of the business judgment rule, plaintiff having made no showing that the cooperative’s decision was rendered in bad faith or in furtherance of purposes other than those legitimately held by the cooperative corporation (see, Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530, 537-538). Finally, in light of the fact that the cooperative’s challenged actions were protected by the business judgment rule, it is plain that plaintiffs remaining claim, that said actions constituted tortious interference with the subject contract for the sale of cooperative shares to plaintiff, was not tenable (see, Levine v Yokell, 245 AD2d 138,139). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

Plotch v. 435 E. 85th St. Tenants Corp.
2020 NY Slip Op 06003 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Nainan v. 715-723 Sixth Ave. Owners Corp.
2019 NY Slip Op 8351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Pastor v. DeGaetano
128 A.D.3d 218 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
85 Fifth Ave. 4th Floor, LLC v. I.A. Selig, LLC
45 A.D.3d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Balk v. 125 West 92nd Street Corp.
24 A.D.3d 193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Leist v. Goldstein
305 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Aridas v. 244 East 60th Street Owners Corp.
292 A.D.2d 325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Seward Park Housing Corp. v. Cohen
287 A.D.2d 157 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Axelrod v. 400 Owners Corp.
189 Misc. 2d 461 (New York Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 A.D.2d 380, 714 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woo-v-irving-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-2000.