AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of PROSPECT HEIGHTS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al., Respondents. DENISE CALDWELL TAYLOR et al., Nonparty Appellants.

Ordered that the order dated October 6, 2005, is modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, denying, without a hearing, the motion to vacate the order dated March 26, 2004 granting the petition and authorizing the sale; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing in accordance herewith, and thereafter, for a new determination on the motion.

By order dated March 26, 2004, the Supreme Court granted the petition of the not-for-profit corporation Prospect Heights Housing Development Fund Corporation for permission to sell the subject premises to Sela-Lincoln Realty Corporation, without objection from the Attorney General ( see Not-For-Profit Corporation Law §§ 510, 511). By motion dated November 15, 2004, certain tenants who resided at the premises sought to vacate that order, inter alia, on the ground that the petition contained several material misrepresentations and omissions.

The underlying purpose of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law is to protect the beneficiaries of a charitable organization from loss through unwise bargains and from perversion of the use of its property ( see Rose Ocko Found, v Lebovits, 259 AD2d 685, 688 [1999]). Under the particular facts of this case, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine whether the sale of the subject premises was lawfully accomplished and, if not, whether the order dated March 26, 2004 granting the petition and authorizing the sale should be vacated ( see Matter of Noble Drew Alt Plaza Hous. Corp., 24 AD3d 678 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we decline to address the parties' remaining contentions.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE MTR. OF CALDWELL
(Mar 20, 2007)