In the matter of Trump Village Section No. 4 v. Gene Vilensky a/k/a Gene Vilenskiy, Index No. 522355/2016 (Kings County), a residential housing corporation’s concern about alleged statements made in a purchase application played a central role. In situations like this one, an unreported April 20, 2022 decision by Justice Ingrid Joseph of the Supreme Court, Kings County, highlights several procedural and substantive choices that a residential housing corporation may need to consider.

Given the breadth of the scope of the respective parties’ summary judgment motions, and certain size limitations of this article, we will limit our discussion to the coop’s claims (1) for monetary damages arising out of its claim that it was fraudulently induced to waive its right of first refusal and (2) for rescission of the defendant’s occupancy agreement.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]