Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The LOUISE LASKIN TRUST-1991, Plaintiff-Respondent, Sallie Felzen, Plaintiff, v. 775 PARK AVENUE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered June 26, 2001, which, in an action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant residential cooperative's refusal to approve the transfer of an apartment from plaintiff trust to its settlor's daughter, denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1),(7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that contrary to the terms of the proprietary lease and the manner in which defendant treated other shareholders, defendant demanded that plaintiff pay a “flip tax” on what would have been, in effect, an intra-family gratuitous transfer, and that defendant rejected the proposed transfer because plaintiff refused to pay such flip tax. These allegations are sufficient to show that defendant's rejection of the proposed transfer was not in good faith, and is therefore actionable (see Ackerman v. 305 E. 40th Owners Corp., 189 A.D.2d 665, 667, 592 N.Y.S.2d 365). Defendant's president's affidavit denying that defendant rejected the transfer because of plaintiff's initial reluctance to pay a flip tax, as evidenced by defendant's adherence to its rejection even after plaintiff offered to pay a flip tax, raises issues of fact bearing upon defendant's directors' states of mind to be considered after joinder of issue (see id. at 666, 667, 592 N.Y.S.2d 365, citing, inter alia, Bryan v. W. 81 St. Owners Corp., 186 A.D.2d 514, 589 N.Y.S.2d 323). Defendant's argument that the cause of action for breach of contract should be dismissed as duplicative of the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 21, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)