Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cooperatives & Condominiums
Business Judgment Rule Does Not Permit Co-Op to Block Bulk Sale
R&L Realty Associates v. 205 West 103 Owners Corp.
NYLJ 8/10/12, p. 23, col. 5
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an article 78 proceeding by owner of 25 co-op apartments to compel a co-op corporation to prepare documents for a closing for the bulk sale of the apartments, the co-op appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the co-op board's actions were not protected by the business judgment rule.
Owner of the apartments had previously been ordered by a court to sell them in a bulk sale. Nevertheless, the co-op corporation refused to prepare new stock certificates and proprietary leases for the apartments and other documents necessary to facilitate closing. The apartment owner then brought this proceeding, and Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering the co-op corporation to prepare the documents and adjudging that the owner of the apartments was entitled to inspect the co-op corporation's books. The co-op appealed.
In affirming, the Appellate Division held that in light of the owner's legal right to sell the apartments, Supreme Court properly directed the co-op corporation to engage in the ministerial acts necessary to remove obstacles to the sale. The court emphasized that the proprietary lease does not give the co-op the right to object to the owner's sale of unsold shares or any other shares. As a result, the co-op's refusal to co-operate was an action outside the scope of its authority. When a co-op acts outside the scope of its authority, it is not entitled to the protection of the business judgment rule.
Business Judgment Rule Does Not Permit Co-Op to Block Bulk Sale
R&L Realty Associates v. 205 West 103 Owners Corp.
NYLJ 8/10/12, p. 23, col. 5
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an article 78 proceeding by owner of 25 co-op apartments to compel a co-op corporation to prepare documents for a closing for the bulk sale of the apartments, the co-op appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the co-op board's actions were not protected by the business judgment rule.
Owner of the apartments had previously been ordered by a court to sell them in a bulk sale. Nevertheless, the co-op corporation refused to prepare new stock certificates and proprietary leases for the apartments and other documents necessary to facilitate closing. The apartment owner then brought this proceeding, and Supreme Court granted the petition, ordering the co-op corporation to prepare the documents and adjudging that the owner of the apartments was entitled to inspect the co-op corporation's books. The co-op appealed.
In affirming, the Appellate Division held that in light of the owner's legal right to sell the apartments, Supreme Court properly directed the co-op corporation to engage in the ministerial acts necessary to remove obstacles to the sale. The court emphasized that the proprietary lease does not give the co-op the right to object to the owner's sale of unsold shares or any other shares. As a result, the co-op's refusal to co-operate was an action outside the scope of its authority. When a co-op acts outside the scope of its authority, it is not entitled to the protection of the business judgment rule.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.