| Singh v Turtle Bay Towers Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05279 [74 AD3d 568] |
| June 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Arnick Singh et al., Appellants, v Turtle Bay TowersCorp., Respondent. |
—[*1] Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Alexa Englander of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered November 12,2009, which denied plaintiffs' application for an injunction prohibiting defendant from issuing ortransferring the shares of stock and proprietary lease to the subject apartment to anyone otherthan plaintiffs and to stay any proceedings by defendant to issue, transfer, and affect the stockshares and proprietary lease of said unit, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief was properly denied, as they have not demonstratedthat there is a cause of action under which they have a likelihood of success on the merits.Defendant exercised its right of first refusal to deny plaintiff Navpreet Singh's purchaseapplication, and there is no question that plaintiffs were aware of the valid, enforceable right offirst refusal and that they agreed to be bound by it (see e.g. Anderson v 50 E. 72nd St.Condominium, 119 AD2d 73 [1986], appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 743 [1987]).Furthermore, the record shows that the decision to deny the purchase application was based uponthe determination that the purchase price for the subject unit was significantly below marketvalue (see 40 W. 67th St. v Pullman, 100 NY2d 147 [2003]; Matter of Levandusky vOne Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530, 537-538 [1990]).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments, including that the exercise of the rightof first refusal was a pretext for discriminating against them, and find them unavailing.Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.