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.
Estate of Charlotte Sherman, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Southbridge Towers, Inc., Defendant–Respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered November 25, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, and order, same court (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered March 10, 2016, which denied plaintiff's motion to vacate the November 25, 2015 order, unanimously affirmed.
Contrary to its contention, plaintiff is not the shareholder of record with respect to the deceased tenant/cooperator's apartment. Stock certificates issued to the decedent were not automatically transferred to plaintiff upon the decedent's death (see Matter of Levin v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y., 140 Misc.2d 110 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County 1988], mod on other grounds 151 A.D.2d 264 [1st Dept 1989]; 9 NYCRR 1727–8.3). Nor has any family member of the decedent satisfied the requirements for succession rights (see 9 NYCRR 1727–8.2[a] ).
In plain and unambiguous language, the offering plan not only stated that no vote would be counted from apartments of which the shareholder of record was deceased and apartments as to which there were unresolved succession claims, and that “[e]states will be excluded from the vote,” but also defined “Shareholders” as “those persons who are Shareholders of record of Sponsor as of the Filing Date” (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004] ). The decedent, not plaintiff, was the shareholder of record on the filing date.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 2513– 2514
Decided: December 15, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)