Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the inclusion of the preferential subleasing provision in the proprietary lease, although violative of Business Corporation Law § 501(c)(see Lescht v. Concord Vill. Owners Corp., 261 A.D.2d 449; Wapnick v. Seven Park Ave. Corp., 240 A.D.2d 245), did not effectively divest defendant residential cooperative corporation of its basic, underlying prerogative, unambiguously set forth elsewhere in the proprietary lease, to regulate subtenancies (see Susser v. 200 E. 36th Owners Corp., 262 A.D.2d 197). Accordingly, the motion court properly invalidated only the provision according preferential rights, leaving the corporations authority with respect to the regulation of subtenancies otherwise intact.
We have considered and plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.