§Why CasetextPricing

Estate of Helen Del Terzo, et al., Respondents,v.33 Fifth Avenue Owners Corp., Appellant.

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp.

    75 N.Y.2d 530 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 605 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "[s]o long as the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith, courts will not substitute their judgment for the board's

  2. 40 West 67th Street Corp. v. Pullman

    100 N.Y.2d 147 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 263 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "relationships among shareholders in cooperatives are sufficiently distinct from traditional landlord-tenant relationships" and that courts should not look behind proper board votes

  3. Slatt v. Slatt

    64 N.Y.2d 966 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 265 times
    Cautioning that "courts may not fashion a new contract under the guise of contract construction," but must "discern the intent of the parties, to the extent that [the parties] evidenced what they intended by what they wrote" (alteration in Slatt )

  4. Laba v. Carey

    29 N.Y.2d 302 (N.Y. 1971)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that a court must interpret a contract to give each provision its full force and effect

  5. Sowa v. Looney

    23 N.Y.2d 329 (N.Y. 1968)   Cited 106 times

    Argued October 14, 1968 Decided December 11, 1968 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. Morris H. Schneider, County Attorney ( Seymour S. Ross of counsel), for appellants. James G. Blake for respondent. JASEN, J. This is an article 78 proceeding to review a determination by the Commissioner of the Nassau County Police Department dismissing petitioner from the police department. Complainant, a 21-year-old woman, was driving along a lonely road in

  6. Steinberg v. Schnapp

    73 A.D.3d 171 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 23 times

    Nos. 1166, 1167. April 13, 2010. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered on or about September 16, 2008, and a judgment of that court, entered October 27, 2008. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The judgment dismissed the complaint. Robert E. Steinberg, New York City, appellant pro se. Avrom R. Vann, P.C., New York City ( Avrom R. Vann of counsel), for respondent. Before: SAXE, J.P., BUCKLEY, ACOSTA and FREEDMAN, JJ. OPINION

  7. Katz v. Third Colony Corp.

    101 A.D.3d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 15 times

    2012-12-27 Robert KATZ, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. THIRD COLONY CORPORATION, Defendant–Respondent. Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York (C. Evan Stewart of counsel), for appellants. Braverman & Associates, P.C., New York (Tracy M. Peterson of counsel), for respondent. MAZZARELLI Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York (C. Evan Stewart of counsel), for appellants. Braverman & Associates, P.C., New York (Tracy M. Peterson of counsel), for respondent. MAZZARELLI, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, DEGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS

  8. Buttitta v. Greenwich House Co-op. Apartments

    11 A.D.3d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 20 times
    In Buttitta, the lower court noted that plaintiffs, all shareholders, brought an action asserting seven causes of action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against their residential cooperative corporation.

  9. Silver v. Murray House Owners Corp.

    126 A.D.3d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Affirming denial of summary judgment where contract provided that consent could not be unreasonably withheld as "defendant's actions must be reasonable and, accordingly, are not sheltered from review by the business judgment rule"

  10. Konigsberg v. 333 E. 46th St. Apartment Corp.

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 31180 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the fact that the tenants were allowed to keep a previously approved washer/dryer for 20 years before the new house rule was adopted, did not prevent the cooperative board from enforcing the new house rule when the tenants sought to install new appliances