Rego Park Gardens Owners, Inc. v. Rego Park Gardens Associates
| Decision Date | 22 March 1993 |
| Citation | 595 N.Y.S.2d 492,191 A.D.2d 621 |
| Parties | REGO PARK GARDENS OWNERS, INC., Appellant, v. REGO PARK GARDENS ASSOCIATES, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Schwarzfeld, Ganfer & Shore, New York City (Neal Schwarzfeld, of counsel), for appellant.
Boulanger, Finley & Hicks, P.C., New York City (Blake Perkins and Charles E. Boulbol, of counsel), for respondents Rego Park Gardens Associates, Western Heritable Inv. Co. (US) Ltd., individually and as general partner of Rego Park Gardens Associates, Rego Gardens Corp., individually and as general partner of Rego Park Gardens Associates, Philip A. Mactaggart, individually, and William K. Norris, individually.
Gallagher & Gosseen, Mineola (Robert I. Gosseen and Alan D. Kaplan, of counsel), for Rego Park Gardens Condominium and Board of Managers of Rego Park Gardens Condominium.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and SULLIVAN, BALLETTA and J. O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation arising out of the conversion of eight buildings to condominium/cooperative ownership, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated April 11, 1990, as granted those branches of the respondents' motion which were to dismiss the third, fifth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth causes of action in the amended verified complaint insofar as they are asserted against them. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated September 25, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (see, CPLR 5517[b].
ORDERED that the respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.
This appeal arises out of the conversion to condominium and cooperative ownership of eight buildings in Rego Park, Queens. The condominium is divided into eight residential units comprised of 527 residential apartments in the eight buildings (hereinafter the Residential Units), 48 professional units comprised of professional offices in the eight buildings, and five garage units comprised of the garages in the buildings. The defendants Rego Park Gardens Associates, Western Heritable Investment Company (US) Ltd., Rego Park Gardens Corp., Philip A. MacTataggart and William K. Norris, the sponsors of the Condominium, sold the Residential Units to the plaintiff, Rego Park Gardens Owners, Inc. (hereinafter the Cooperative), who in turn sold shares of the Cooperative to the tenants and other purchasers. The sponsor maintained ownership of the garage units but sold the professional units. The governing body for the condominium is the defendant Board of Managers for Rego Park Gardens Condominium (hereinafter the Condo Board) and the governing body for the Cooperative is the Board of Directors (hereinafter the Coop Board).
The Cooperative commenced this action against, among others, the sponsors and the Condo Board, seeking damages and related relief on causes of action asserted under common law and various statutes and regulations, including the Martin Act (General Business Law art. 23-A). Upon the respondents' motions, the Supreme Court dismissed, inter alia, the third, fifth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth causes of action. On appeal, we find that the court properly dismissed those causes of action.
It is now well settled that there is no private cause of action under the Martin Act (see, CPC Intl. v. McKesson Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 268, 519 N.Y.S.2d 804, 514 N.E.2d 116; Vermeer Owners...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
...Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 268, 276, 514 N.E.2d 116, 519 N.Y.S.2d 804, 807 (1987); Rego Park Gardens Owners v. Rego Park Gardens Assocs., 191 A.D.2d 621, 595 N.Y.S.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1993). Thus courts have dismissed state law claims "covered" by the Martin Act on the grounds that perm......
-
In re Beacon Associates Litig..This Document Relates To: All Actions.
...Horn v. 440 E. 57th Co., 151 A.D.2d 112, 120, 547 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y.App.Div.1989); see also Rego Park Gardens Owners, Inc. v. Rego Park Gardens Assocs., 191 A.D.2d 621, 595 N.Y.S.2d 492, 494 (1993) (dismissing negligent misrepresentation claim “because this cause of action sought, in essence,......
-
Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp.
...(2d Dep't 2002), would allow such an end-run around the legislature's apparent intent. Rego Park Gardens Owners, Inc. v. Rego Park Gardens Associates, 191 A.D.2d 621, 595 N.Y.S.2d 492 (2d Dep't 1993), is instructive. There, the plaintiff asserted a cause of action for fraudulent nondisclosu......
-
Assured Guar. (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt. Inc.
...Townhomes Assn. of Buffalo v. Breakwaters of Buffalo, 207 A.D.2d 963, 616 N.Y.S.2d 829 [1994]; Rego Park Gardens Owners v. Rego Park Gardens Assoc., 191 A.D.2d 621, 622, 595 N.Y.S.2d 492 [1993]; Eagle Tenants Corp. v. Fishbein, 182 A.D.2d 610, 611, 582 N.Y.S.2d 218 [1992]; Horn v. 440 E. 57......
-
New York's Highest Court Decides Important Martin Act Preemption Question
...1992). See also Horn v. 440 East 57th Co., 151 A.D.2d 112 (1st Dep't 1989); Rego Park Gardens Owners, Inc. v. Rego Park Gardens Assoc., 191 A.D.2d 621, 595 N.Y.S.2d 492, 494 (2d Dep't Independent Order of Foresters v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrett, 919 F.Supp. 149, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Ca......