Addressing Differences Between the Business Corporation Law and the Cooperative Corporations Law
A corporation may also have been formed under New York's Cooperative Corporations Law (CCL) —though the Legislature did declare that the policy behind the CCL was "to encourage ... effective organization" of associations of "producers, marketers or consumers of food products" with the aim of "rendering of mutual help and service" to those entities.
May 11, 2023 at 10:53 AM
5 minute read
Real EstateHistorically, when a sponsor of a parcel of real property sought to sell the ownership of the real property, one means was to transfer ownership of the land into a corporation, and to then sell shares of the corporation to individual purchasers who were then issued proprietary leases appurtenant to individual apartments. The proprietary lease would allow the shareholder to reside in the "coop apartment", and the stock certificate would make purchaser a shareholder of the corporation. A sponsor choosing the corporate form of ownership would ordinarily form a corporation in accordance with New York's Business Corporation Law (BCL). However, a corporation may also have been formed under New York's Cooperative Corporations Law (CCL) —though the Legislature did declare that the policy behind the CCL was "to encourage … effective organization" of associations of "producers, marketers or consumers of food products" with the aim of "rendering of mutual help and service" to those entities. N.Y. Coop. Corp. Law Section 2.
Disputes in our judicial system relating to residential "coops" are plentiful, and involve issues typically seen in other types of public and private corporations. The overwhelming majority of these cases, however, involve BCL corporations; unsurprisingly, far fewer cases address the applicability and interpretation of the CCL. Recently, however, one such case was appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.
The case, Oliver 889 v. 889 Realty, 212 A.D.3d 531, 532 (1st Dept. 2023), was filed by the shareholder of the commercial space located at 889 Broadway, New York, New York, which was comprised of three separate units, 1A, 1B, and 1C. Among other issues in the case, the plaintiff, Oliver 889 LLC, challenged the corporation's requirement that Oliver 889 LLC enter into a voting trust or "voting agreement," as they called it, upon its acquisition of the 2,860 shares appurtenant to the commercial space. According to the plaintiff, the voting trust would impermissibly prevent it from freely voting 2,630 of its 2,860 shares, thus restricting the shareholder from voting over 90% of the total shares it owns. Oliver 889 v. 889 Realty, 212 A.D.3d 531, 532 (1st Dept. 2023).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEstablishing the Prevailing Party; Failure To Comply With LLC Law; Takings Claim: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Decision of the Day: De Blasio Must Sit for Deposition in Suit Over City Program to Transfer Foreclosed Properties
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250