Qlisanr, LLC v Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc.
2008 NY Slip Op 04336 [51 AD3d 651]
May 6, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 16, 2008


Qlisanr, LLC, et al., Appellants,
v
Hollis Park ManorNursing Home, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Ahron Ebert,Respondent.

[*1]Seth Eisenberger, Nanuet, N.Y., for appellants.

Steven L. Levitt & Associates, P.C., Williston Park, N.Y. (Karen L. Weiss and IreneTenedios of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, in effect, that the defendant Ahron Ebertfailed to properly exercise his right of first refusal to purchase the assets of the defendants HollisPark Manor Nursing Home, Inc., Hollis Park Holding, LLC, and Hollis Park Realty, LLC, theplaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered March1, 2007, which denied their motion for summary judgment on their cause of action fordeclaratory relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawon their cause of action for declaratory relief. Triable issues of fact exist as to, inter alia, whetherthe respondent Ahron Ebert improperly sought to exercise his right of first refusal by seeking topurchase only the assets of the defendant Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc. (see LaramieSpringtree Corp. v Equity Residential Props. Trust, 303 AD2d 464 [2003]), or whether, onthe other hand, he properly exercised his right of first refusal by agreeing to purchase all of theassets of the defendants Hollis Park Manor Nursing Home, Inc., Hollis Park Holding, LLC, andHollis Park Realty, LLC (hereinafter collectively the Company), pursuant to the agreementbetween the Company and the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for summaryjudgment on their cause of action for declaratory relief was properly denied. In light of thisdetermination we need not examine the sufficiency of Ebert's opposing papers (see generallyAlvarez v Prospect Hosp[*2]., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986];Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Kuri v Bhattacharya, 44 AD3d 718[2007]; cf., Yudell Trust I v API Westchester Assoc., 227 AD2d 471, 473 [1996]).Spolzino, J.P., Lifson, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.