Opinion
2012-03-6
Vera SALNIKOVA, etc., et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. Andrew CUOMO, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, New York (Richard L. Farren of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Robert C. Weisz of counsel), for Andrew Cuomo, respondent.
McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, New York (Richard L. Farren of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Robert C. Weisz of counsel), for Andrew Cuomo, respondent.
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Deborah E. Riegel of counsel), for S & P Associates of New York, LLC, respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2010, granting respondents' cross motion to deny the amended petition and to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Attorney General's determination not to further investigate petitioners' claims, after hearing from their representatives and the sponsor prior to acceptance of the condominium offering plan amendment for filing, is not subject to judicial review ( see People v. Bunge Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 91, 97–98, 302 N.Y.S.2d 785, 250 N.E.2d 204 [1969] ). Acceptance of the amendment for filing was not arbitrary and capricious because it contained the required disclosure and a sufficient number of sales had been made to bona fide purchasers to declare the plan effective. There is no merit to petitioners' claim of any right to a price reduction after the exclusive purchase period set forth in the plan or to their contention that discounted prices offered to nontenant purchasers were discriminatory inducements ( see General Business Law § 352–eeee[2][c][i]; Karpf v. Turtle Bay House Co., 127 Misc.2d 154, 156, 485 N.Y.S.2d 173 [1984] ).
We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.