F&T Management & Parking Corp. v. Flushing Plumbing Supply Co., Inc.

Decision Date15 December 2009
Docket Number2009-01499
Citation68 A.D.3d 920,893 N.Y.S.2d 66,2009 NY Slip Op 9424
PartiesF&T MANAGEMENT & PARKING CORP., Appellant, v. FLUSHING PLUMBING SUPPLY CO., INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendants Chien Yang Development Group, Inc., Shoho J, LLC, and Chien Tsang Lin which was to cancel the notice of pendency filed by the plaintiff with respect to certain parcels of real property, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof granting the converted branch of the motion of the defendants Chien Yang Development Group, Inc., Shoho J, LLC, and Chien Tsang Lin which was for summary judgment declaring that the right of first refusal granted to the defendant Chien Yang Development Group, Inc., under the lease is not extinguished and substituting therefor provisions denying the converted branch of the motion and searching the record and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff declaring that the right of first refusal granted to the defendant Chien Yang Development Group, Inc., under the lease is extinguished; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants Flushing Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., Paul Brown Properties, Ltd., 37-25, LLC, and Paul Brown, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County for further proceedings on the second cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendants Leavitt Enterprise, Inc., and Asia Bank, N.A., and the entry thereafter of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the right of first refusal granted to the defendant Chien Yang Development Group, Inc., under the lease is extinguished.

On June 17, 2005 the plaintiff and the defendants Flushing Plumbing Supply Co. (hereinafter Flushing Plumbing Supply), Paul Brown Properties, Ltd. (hereinafter Paul Brown Properties), 37-25, LLC (hereinafter 37-25), and Chien Yang Development Group, Inc. (hereinafter CYD), entered into a so-ordered stipulation that settled a prior action (hereinafter the stipulation of settlement). Pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff was given an option to purchase three commercial properties owned by Flushing Plumbing Supply, Paul Brown Properties, and 37-25, and leased to CYD for a term of 98 years pursuant to a written agreement (hereinafter the lease). The plaintiff could exercise that option during the period commencing August 1, 2052 and ending on July 30, 2053. The plaintiff's exercise of that option was, however, subject to a right of first refusal granted in the lease to CYD.

On December 17, 2007 one of the properties was sold to the defendant Shoho J, LCC (hereinafter Shoho J). The other two properties (hereinafter the Leavitt properties) were sold to the defendant Leavitt Enterprise, Inc. (hereinafter Leavitt), which financed its purchase with a mortgage loan from the defendant Asia Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Asia Bank).

In addition, on December 17, 2007, CYD subleased the two Leavitt properties back to Leavitt. The term of the sublease ended one day before the end of the term of the lease.

Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced the instant action, seeking, inter alia, to set aside both the sublease and the deeds to Leavitt and Shoho J on the ground that the underlying transactions violated the stipulation of settlement. The plaintiff also sought a judgment declaring that CYD's right of first refusal was extinguished in light of CYD's failure to exercise that right when the properties were sold to Leavitt and Shoho...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Mangia Rest. Corp. v. Utica First Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 2021
    ...involve(d) issues of law which were fully appreciated and argued by the parties’ " ( F & T Mgt. & Parking Corp. v. Flushing Plumbing Supply Co., Inc. , 68 A.D.3d 920, 923, 893 N.Y.S.2d 66 [2009] quoting Moutafis v. Osborne , 18 A.D.3d 723, 724, 795 N.Y.S.2d 716 [2d Dept. 2005] ; see Brown v......
  • Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 12 Diciembre 2012
    ...334, 391 N.E.2d 1311) or the application of an unambiguous contractual provision ( see F & T Mgt. & Parking Corp. v. Flushing Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., 68 A.D.3d 920, 923, 893 N.Y.S.2d 66). The third circumstance is when the respective submissions of both parties demonstrate that they are ......
  • Frank v. Metalico Rochester, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 31 Julio 2019
    ...involve[d] issues of law which were fully appreciated and argued by the parties’ " ( F & T Mgt. & Parking Corp. v. Flushing Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., 68 A.D.3d 920, 923, 893 N.Y.S.2d 66 [2d Dept. 2009], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 702, 2010 WL 2572397 [2010] ; see Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, In......
  • Brown v. Decaudin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 17 Junio 2015
    ...inter alia, the dispute involves only issues of law which were argued by all parties (see F & T Mgt. & Parking Corp. v. Flushing Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., 68 A.D.3d 920, 893 N.Y.S.2d 66 ; Frydman v. Fidelity Natl. Tit. Ins. Co., 68 A.D.3d 622, 623–624, 891 N.Y.S.2d 381 ; Backer v. Bouza Fa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT