AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

MARIA MEICHSNER, Appellant, v. VALENTINE GARDENS COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The imposition of a waiver of option fee upon outgoing shareholders who wish to sell their shares on the open market rather than resell them to the cooperative corporation at book value, as their agreement provided, is a valid exercise of a cooperative board's power as granted both by statute, the corporation's bylaws, and as interpreted in case law (see, Jamil v Southridge Coop., 102 Misc.2d 404, affd 77 A.D.2d 822, cert denied 450 U.S. 919, reh denied 450 U.S. 1050; Pomerantz v Clearview Gardens First Through Sixth Corps., 77 A.D.2d 651; Business Corporation Law § 701).

The waiver of option fee was applied in a evenly proportioned fashion and thus does not violate the mandate of Business Corporation Law § 501 (c) that each share of stock be equal to every other share in the class (see, Fe Bland v Two Trees Mgt. Co., 66 N.Y.2d 556, 569). Fe Bland v Two Trees Mgt. Co. (supra) may be read to permit the imposition of a "flip tax" that is neither prohibited by a corporation's bylaws nor the proprietary lease, nor violative of the proportionality requirements as mandated by Business Corporation Law § 501 (c).

In any event, the Legislature, in response to doubt generated by the decision in Fe Bland v Two Trees Mgt. Co. (supra), amended Business Corporation Law § 501 (c), effective July 24, 1986, to authorize an exception to the statutory per share proportionality requirements in residential cooperative corporations to permit unequal charges, provided that the transfer fee has been validly adopted pursuant to the terms of the offering plan, proprietary lease and bylaws, considered in conjunction with each other (see, Mogulescu v 255 W. 98th St. Owners Corp., 135 A.D.2d 32 [in which the court upheld retroactive application of the amendment]).

Moreover, in the case at bar, neither the bylaws nor the proprietary lease contains the limiting language adverted to in Fe Bland v Two Trees Mgt. Co. (supra). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MEICHSNER v. VALENTINE GARDENS COOP., INC
(Feb 29, 1988)