ROBERT KATZ plf-ap, v. THIRD COLONY CORPORATION, def-res

8913. ROBERT KATZ plf-ap, v. THIRD COLONY CORPORATION, def-res — Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York (C. Evan Stewart of counsel), for ap — Braverman & Associates, P.C., New York (Tracy M. Peterson of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered April 19, 2012, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and denied plaintiffs' cross motion for partial summary judgment as moot, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8913. ROBERT KATZ plf-ap, v. THIRD COLONY CORPORATION, def-res — Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York (C. Evan Stewart of counsel), for ap — Braverman & Associates, P.C., New York (Tracy M. Peterson of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered April 19, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment as moot, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant is a cooperative corporation that owns a building at 180 East 79th Street, New York County, and plaintiffs formerly owned the shares to apartments 14B and 14C. In August 2011, plaintiffs sold their interest in the two apartments and, under protest, paid a “flip tax” to defendant. Within weeks, plaintiffs commenced this action alleging one cause of action the characterization of which is in dispute. That portion of plaintiffs’ complaint that specified the sole cause of action explicitly and repeatedly alleges that defendant acted “ultra vires,” which plaintiffs argued below. Now, however, in an attempt to make their claim appear viable, plaintiffs avoid characterizing their claim as seeking to prohibit defendants’ ultra vires acts, and instead, they repeatedly characterize their claim as one “for money damages” or an “extraction of money” that was “wrongful,” seeking a money judgment in the amount of the flip tax.

ROBERT KATZ plf-ap, v. THIRD COLONY CORPORATION, def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal