10106. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 184 THOMPSON STREET CONDOMINIUM, plf-ap, v. 184 THOMPSON STREET OWNER LLC def-res — Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for ap — Tannenbaum, Helpern, Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP, New York (Kenneth M. Block of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered April 11, 2012, as amended by order, same court and Justice, entered April 26, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted so much of defendants’ motion as sought dismissal of the first, third and fourth causes of action against defendants 184 Thompson Acquisition LLC, 184 Thompson Street Partners, LLC, and Raymond Chalme (the Non-Sponsors), and dismissal of the third cause of action as against remaining defendant 184 Thompson Street Owner LLC (the Sponsor), denied so much of plaintiff’s cross motion as sought partial summary judgment on subsections (a) and (b) of its first cause of action, and its third and fourth causes of action, and, upon searching the record, granted the Sponsor summary judgment on subsection (b) of the first cause of action to the extent of declaring that, having elected to establish the reserve fund for the subject condominium pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York §26-703(b)(i), the Sponsor “was entitled to ‘receive [a] credit against the mandatory initial contribution to the reserve fund’” under §26-703(c), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Sponsor opted to fund the subject condominium’s reserve fund pursuant to Administrative Code §26-703(b)(i) (the Total Price Method). Under the plain language of the governing statutes, the “total price” referred to in §26-703(b)(i) is not “the price in effect during the exclusive purchase period, i.e., the so-called ‘insider’s price,’” but rather the “‘last price… offered to tenants in occupancy prior to the effective date of the plan’” (Turtle Bay Towers Corp. v. Welco Assoc., 228 AD2d 189, 189-190 [1st Dept 1996], quoting Administrative Code §702[b][1], lv denied 89 NY2d 804 [1996]). We agree with the motion court that the record contains no conclusive evidence that the tenant-offeree prices set forth in the offering plan were increased prior to the plan’s effective date. We reject plaintiff’s contention that the tenantofferee prices set forth in the plan were “illusory.” Although 96 of the 140 units listed were vacant, disregarding the vacant apartments would only result in lowering the amount of the reserve fund, which would be illogical and run counter to the statutory Total Price Method’s purpose of providing for an adequate building reserve fund.
