When the Co-op's commercial tenant sought court intervention to determine its
rights to use the rear yard of the building to house and alter mechanical
equipment, Peter Sverd was up to the task. Mr. Sverd argued that the
lawsuit was not ripe for adjudication and should, therefore, be dismissed
without considering the merits of the plaintiff's case. The Court
agreed, finding that a letter from the Co-op's attorney and an oral
statement of its Vice President to the plaintiffs was not tantamount to official
Board action 'denying the plans' which was required under the plaintiff's
lease. "Knowledge of the law and attention to every fact of the case
revealed that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first
place. Any bargaining power that the plaintiffs thought they had brought to
bare by bringing this lawsuit, turned out to be an illusion." Said Mr.
Sverd. The Court dismissed the case and awarded costs and disbursements
to the plaintiffs.
The case is 100 Wooster Store Corp. v Wooster 100 Realty LTD. Index No.: 111692/2010
No comments:
Post a Comment