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.
64TH ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANHATTAN EYE, EAR & THROAT HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 14, 2001, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant hospital, a not-for-profit corporation, entered into a contract for the sale of its real estate assets to plaintiff. The contract included a provision requiring defendant to reimburse plaintiff for pre-contractual out-of-pocket expenses in the event the statutorily required judicial approval of the sale (N-PCL § 510[a][3]; § 511; see Church of God v. Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist, 54 N.Y.2d 742, 442 N.Y.S.2d 986, 426 N.E.2d 480) were not obtained. Defendant's application for judicial approval was denied. Plaintiff then brought the instant action to recover its out-of-pocket expenses on the theory that the judicial disapproval voided only the contract provisions relating to the transfer of the property, and left intact the provisions relating to the consequences of a judicial disapproval. The IAS court correctly rejected this argument as contrary to the purpose of the statute-to protect charitable organizations from loss through unwise bargains. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the charity's payment of what is, in effect, liquidated damages for having entered into an improvident transaction. We have considered plaintiff's other causes of action and proposed causes of action, and find that they also fail to state a cause of action.
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: January 28, 2003
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)