Legal Opinion

Seitzman v. Hudson River Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 24, 1987PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Asch, J.

Plaintiffs are medical doctors who reside and own apartments at 137 Riverside Drive in Manhattan, a cooperative apartment building owned by 137 Riverside Owners, Inc. Plaintiff Seitzman is an internist, plaintiff Minóla is a psychiatrist. Each of them currently practices elsewhere in Manhattan. Defendant Hudson River Associates is the sponsor and selling agent of the cooperative corporation. It controls the board of directors of that organization.

In August of 1985, the defendant was using the ground-floor apartment 1A at the building as its sales office. Plaintiffs…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Neville, Inc. v. Hayden Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Albini v. Solork AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
  3. Barney v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Destiny USA Holdings, LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  2. Vincent v. SeamanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  3. Hirschmann v. HassapoyannesNew York Supreme Court · 2005
  4. LGC USA Holdings, Inc. v. Taly Diamonds, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
  5. Ruskin v. SafirNew York Supreme Court · 1998

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API