Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Singh v. Turtle Bay Towers Corp.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


June 15, 2010

ARNICK SINGH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
TURTLE BAY TOWERS CORP., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered November 12, 2009, which denied plaintiffs' application for an injunction prohibiting defendants from issuing or transferring the shares of stock and proprietary lease to the subject apartment to anyone other than plaintiffs and to stay any proceedings by defendant to issue, transfer, and affect the stock shares and proprietary lease of said unit, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli, Catterson, JJ.

111546/09

Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief was properly denied, as they have not demonstrated that there is a cause of action under which they have a likelihood of success on the merits. Defendant exercised its right of first refusal to deny plaintiff Navpreet Singh's purchase application, and there is no question that plaintiffs were aware of the valid, enforceable right of first refusal and that they agreed to be bound by it (see e.g. Anderson v 50 E. 72nd St. Condominium, 119 AD2d 73 [1986], appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 743 [1987]). Furthermore, the record shows that the decision to deny the purchase application was based upon the determination that the purchase price for the subject unit was significantly below market value (see 40 W. 67th St. v Pullman, 100 NY2d 147 [2003]; Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530, 537-538 [1990]).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments, including that the exercise of the right of first refusal was a pretext for discriminating against them, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100615

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.