Grand Realty Co. v. City of White Plains
| Decision Date | 31 December 1986 |
| Parties | GRAND REALTY COMPANY, etc., Appellant, v. The CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bleakley & Schmidt, White Plains (Michael J. Trainor, of counsel), for appellant.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, New York City (Lawrence O. Kamin and Thomas H. Busch, of counsel), for respondents.
Before LAZER, J.P., and BROWN, WEINSTEIN and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered September 5, 1985, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated. The defendants' time to serve their answer is extended to 20 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.
In this action, the plaintiff seeks to prevent the sale by the defendants of certain parcels of land located adjacent to its property, to a developer, Klein and Associates (hereinafter Klein), in connection with an urban renewal project. The complaint charges, inter alia, that the designation of Klein by the Common Council of the City of White Plains as a qualified and eligible sponsor for the project and the approval of the sale to it were carried out in violation of General Municipal Law § 507(2) and the rules and regulations of the defendant White Plains Urban Renewal Agency. It was also charged that the consideration received for the parcels was grossly disproportionate to the fair market value of those parcels and an illegal waste of municipal assets.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. Special Term granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to substantiate its claim that the approval was illegal or unconstitutional or that it was legally harmed. We now reverse.
It is axiomatic that on a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court is required to view every allegation of the complaint as true and resolve all inferences in favor of the plaintiff regardless of whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits (see, Sanders v. Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391, 394, 456 N.Y.S.2d 720, 442 N.E.2d 1231; Datlof v. Turetsky, 111 A.D.2d 364, 489 N.Y.S.2d 353). In this case the plaintiff's allegation that the consideration received for the parcels was grossly disproportionate to their fair market value is sufficient to state a cause of action. While it is true that the defendants were not required to sell the land at the highest marketable price, or even at fair market value (see, General Municipal Law § 507[2][d] ), they were required to obtain substantial or valuable consideration in order for the transaction to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n v. M & F, LLC
... ... Trail runs about two miles from the City of Rochester ... boundary at Highland Avenue to the Town ... Cf ... MJK Bldg. Corp. v. Fayland Realty, Inc. , 181 A.D.3d ... 860, 862-863 (2d Dept 2020) (the ... See ... Hubbard v. City of White Plains , 231 N.Y.S.2d 313, 315 ... (Westchester Co Sup Ct ... of Val ... Stream , 12 N.Y.3d 212, 215 (2009); Grand Realty Co ... v. City of White Plains , 125 A.D.2d 639, ... ...
-
Cavanaugh v. Doherty
...in favor of the plaintiff regardless of whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits" (Grand Realty Co. v. City of White Plains, 125 A.D.2d 639, 510 N.Y.S.2d 172; see, Sanders v. Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391, 394, 456 N.Y.S.2d 720, 442 N.E.2d 1231). As such, accepting plaintiff's a......
-
Clover/Allen's Creek Neighborhood Ass'n v. M & F, LLC
...to abandon the original right of way"), aff'd, 19 A.D.2d 697 (1st Dept 1963). In fact, it may be an illegal gift. See Grand Realty Co., 125 A.D.2d at 640. total, it is not yet concrete if these matters rise to the high "clear and convincing" abandonment level. In all, the permissive referen......
-
Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of New York
...to view every allegation of the complaint as true and resolve all inferences in the plaintiff's favor (Garden Realty Co. v. City of White Plains, 125 A.D.2d 639, 510 N.Y.S.2d 172), I cannot agree with the majority that the conduct complained of does not "meet the threshold requirements for ......