Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Co-op Sale Contracts: Allocating the Risk of Potential Co-op Board Interference
When may a coop buyer escape from a sale contract based on erroneous statements made by the coop board that would, if accurate, interfere with the buyer's right to occupy space associated with the coop shares the buyer has contracted to purchase? The First Department recently faced that issue in Pastor v. DeGaetano' 2015 WL 1781530, and held that the seller was not entitled to summary judgment on the buyer's claim for return of his down payment, emphasizing that a coop buyer is entitled to an assurance that the coop corporation would not disturb his exclusive possession if he consummates the sale.
The Facts
In March 2012, the buyer contracted to purchase shares associated with a penthouse apartment. The buyer paid the seller (an estate) a down payment of $2.75 million on a purchase price of $27.5 million. The proprietary lease associated with the shares provided that the owner of the penthouse “shall have and enjoy the exclusive use of the roof appurtenant to such apartment [i.e.' the terrace] as shown on the plan of the penthouse,” subject to the coop's right to access the roof for maintenance. The contract of sale included a rider requiring the seller to deliver to the buyer, “at or prior to Closing the 'plan of the penthouse' ('Plan') referred to in the Proprietary Lease ' from the [Coop] or an agent thereof, ' which Plan shall be substantially similar to that of the floor plan annexed hereto as Exhibit A.”
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.