Monaghan as Trustee of Monaghan Qualified Personal Residence Trust v. Cole, 9014
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 98 N.Y.S.3d 582,171 A.D.3d 558 |
| Decision Date | 18 April 2019 |
| Parties | William S. MONAGHAN AS TRUSTEE OF the MONAGHAN QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Eric COLE, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Docket Number | Index 650099/18,9014 |
171 A.D.3d 558
98 N.Y.S.3d 582
William S. MONAGHAN AS TRUSTEE OF the MONAGHAN QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
Eric COLE, Defendant–Appellant.
9014
Index 650099/18
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED: APRIL 18, 2019
Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, New York (Ethan A. Kobre of counsel), for appellant.
Profeta & Eisenstein, New York (Jethro M. Eisenstein of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kahn, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.
During the parties' negotiations over the transfer of a cooperative apartment owned by the Monaghan Qualified Personal Residence Trust to defendant, plaintiff trustee was in litigation against the cooperative corporation, alleging that the board wrongfully conditioned its consent to his transfer of the unit upon his purchase of additional shares. The contract of sale executed by the parties provided that plaintiff had "not entered into, shall not enter into, and has no actual knowledge of any agreement (other than the Lease) affecting title to the Unit or its use and/or occupancy after Closing, or which would be binding on or adversely affect Purchaser after Closing (e.g., a sublease or alteration agreement)" (paragraph 4.1.7), and that plaintiff had advised defendant, and defendant acknowledged, that plaintiff was in a dispute with the cooperative about the number of shares allocable to his unit, that defendant acknowledged that plaintiff had no obligation to resolve the dispute, and that plaintiff "may, in [his] sole and absolute discretion, settle the dispute on any terms [plaintiff] finds acceptable, and [defendant's] consent is not required in connection with any such settlement" (paragraph 34 of the contract rider).
Defendant's argument that, in view of the above-quoted provisions, plaintiff's absolute discretion to resolve his dispute with the cooperative may not be construed to permit a settlement imposing terms that would bind or adversely affect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dep't of Hous. Presrervation & Dev. of City of New York v. Rosenfeld, Index No. 300953/2021
...606 (1st Dept. 2010), leave to appeal denied, 17 N.Y.3d 718 (2011), Zuckerman v. New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563 (1980), Monaghan v. Cole, 171 A.D.3d 558, 559 (1st Dept. 2019), Gihon, LLC v. 501 Second St., LLC, 103 A.D.3d 840 (2nd Dept. 2013). To the extent that Respondents did not provide wa......
-
Gluck v. Wai-Shing Li, 2019–00623
...contract, the rider, which provides that its terms "shall govern, and survive closing," is expressly controlling (see Monaghan v. Cole, 171 A.D.3d 558, 558–559, 98 N.Y.S.3d 582 ; Home Fed. Sav. Bank v. Sayegh, 250 A.D.2d 646, 647, 671 N.Y.S.2d 698 ).The defendant's remaining contentions are......
-
People v. Simmon, 9013
...no basis to suppress the contents of the phone, which was seized incident to a lawful arrest, and searched after the police obtained an 171 A.D.3d 558undisputedly valid search...
-
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Nassau Cnty. Pub. Adm'r, 9017
...affidavits submitted by 532 West established that it never received notice of the summons because its agent for service never forwarded 98 N.Y.S.3d 582the same to it (cf.171 A.D.3d 561 John v. Arin Bainbridge Realty Corp. , 147 A.D.3d 454, 455–456, 46 N.Y.S.3d 589 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Plaint......
-
Dep't of Hous. Presrervation & Dev. of City of New York v. Rosenfeld, Index No. 300953/2021
...606 (1st Dept. 2010), leave to appeal denied, 17 N.Y.3d 718 (2011), Zuckerman v. New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563 (1980), Monaghan v. Cole, 171 A.D.3d 558, 559 (1st Dept. 2019), Gihon, LLC v. 501 Second St., LLC, 103 A.D.3d 840 (2nd Dept. 2013). To the extent that Respondents did not provide wa......
-
Gluck v. Wai-Shing Li, 2019–00623
...contract, the rider, which provides that its terms "shall govern, and survive closing," is expressly controlling (see Monaghan v. Cole, 171 A.D.3d 558, 558–559, 98 N.Y.S.3d 582 ; Home Fed. Sav. Bank v. Sayegh, 250 A.D.2d 646, 647, 671 N.Y.S.2d 698 ).The defendant's remaining contentions are......
-
People v. Simmon, 9013
...no basis to suppress the contents of the phone, which was seized incident to a lawful arrest, and searched after the police obtained an 171 A.D.3d 558undisputedly valid search...
-
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Nassau Cnty. Pub. Adm'r, 9017
...affidavits submitted by 532 West established that it never received notice of the summons because its agent for service never forwarded 98 N.Y.S.3d 582the same to it (cf.171 A.D.3d 561 John v. Arin Bainbridge Realty Corp. , 147 A.D.3d 454, 455–456, 46 N.Y.S.3d 589 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Plaint......