From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

167 Housing Corp. v. 167 Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 9, 1998
252 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

July 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).


Plaintiff cooperative housing corporation brought this action to recover damages for, alleged building and design defects against defendants 167 Partnership and its individual partners, Monaghan, Marcus, Frank Raccuglia and Frank Raccuglia, Jr., and against the architect Wys Design Partnership, and Shapiro, its principal.

Contrary to the conclusion reached by the IAS Court, plaintiff cooperative corporation lacked standing to assert a common-law fraud claim against defendant sponsors for information they allegedly withheld or misrepresented since such authority lies exclusively with the Attorney-General under General Business Law § 352 Gen. Bus. ([i.e., the Martin Act] see, 15 E. 11th Apt. Corp. v. Elghanayan, 220 A.D.2d 295, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 1050).

Plaintiff corporation is asserting causes of action on behalf of its residential shareholders, the real parties in interest, who now have a controlling interest in the corporation but did not at the time of the conversion closing. In addition, while plaintiff asserts that it is not bringing the fraud claim pursuant to the Offering Plan, but pursuant to a separate Contract of Exchange, the Offering Plan is incorporated by reference into the former. The complaint predicates the causes of action as to misrepresentation on the condition of the building set forth in the Offering Plan without a single reference anywhere to the Contract of Exchange. Thus, plaintiff's present claim that it relied on representations in the Contract of Exchange, which are wholly derived from the Offering Plan, is impermissible since "private plaintiffs will not be permitted through artful pleading to press any claim based on the sort of wrong given over to the Attorney-General under the Martin Act" ( Whitehall Tenants Corp. v. Estate of Olnick, 213 A.D.2d 200, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 704).

We have examined the remaining contentions by defendants-appellants and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

167 Housing Corp. v. 167 Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 9, 1998
252 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

167 Housing Corp. v. 167 Partnership

Case Details

Full title:167 HOUSING CORP., Respondent, v. 167 PARTNERSHIP et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 9, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 91

Citing Cases

Bridge St. Homeowners Ass'n v. Brick Condo. Developers, LLC

Defendants Bakst, Brick, Channy Bakst and Benedek argue that the Martin Act (General Business Law §…

Kramer v. Real Estate

the Attorney General would be authorized to bring an action against the defendant under the Martin Act ( see…