Majority
OPINION OF THE COURT
Pursuant to the Martin Act (General Business Law article 23-A), the owner of an apartment building may sponsor an of
It is undisputed that the sponsor has sold no shares since 1990. Instead, the sponsor has kept more than 62% of shares in the building, corresponding to 41 of the 66 apartments.
1 See generally General Business Law §§ 352-e — 352-eeee; 13 NYCRR part 18; Goldsmith, “Real Estate Financing,” Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 19, General Business Law art 23-A, at 89-116; Levinson, Real Estate Investments, Public Offerings, and the New York Real Estate Syndicate Act ( 57 St. John’s L Rev 662 [1983]); Maccaro, Cooperative Conversions and Apartment Warehousing (63 NY St B J 30 [1991]).
2 Noneviction plans prohibit sponsors from evicting tenants merely because they refused to purchase shares in the cooperative (see General Business Law § 352-eeee [2] [c] [ii]). By contrast, an “eviction plan” allows the sponsor to evict certain nonpurchasing tenants after the plan becomes effective (see General Business Law § 352-eeee [2] [d] [ii]- [iii]).
The tenant-owners and the Co-op Board brought this action against the sponsor, asserting that the sponsor had breached its contractual duty to dispose of all its shares within a reasonable time. The sponsor moved to dismiss, asserting a defense founded upon documentary evidence (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). In deciding the motion, Supreme Court dismissed the contract claim, finding that the offering plan contained no promise by the sponsor to sell unsold shares within any particular time frame. The Appellate Division reinstated the contract cause of action, holding that the sponsor’s offering plan included an implied promise to sell all unsold units within a reasonable time ( 285 AD2d 244 [2001]). The Appellate Division then granted the sponsor leave to appeal and certified the question, “Was the order of this Court, which modified the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?” ( 287 AD2d 947 [2001].)[3]
We hold that plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action for breach of contract sufficient to survive dismissal under CPLR 3211, and affirm the order of the Appellate Division. Our analysis, however, differs from the Appellate Division’s in that we address only the sufficiency of the contract cause of action as opposed to its merits.
In the posture of defendants’ CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, our task is to determine whether plaintiffs’ pleadings state a
3 [2] At the outset, we note a jurisdictional limitation on the scope of this appeal. Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ amici, including the Attorney General, argue that the Attorney General does not have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute Martin Act violations and that the Appellate Division erred in holding that plaintiffs had no standing to prosecute their fraud causes of action. Plaintiffs also argue that the Appellate Division wrongly dismissed the complaint’s fraud claims as duplicative of the contract claims. These issues are beyond this Court’s review because plaintiffs failed to cross-move for leave to appeal. We will generally deny affirmative relief to a nonmoving party (see Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57 , 61-62 [1983]), even where the Appellate Division broadly certifies the propriety of its order for review by this Court (see Graubard Mollen Dannett & Horowitz v Moskovitz, 86 NY2d 112 , 118 and n 2 [1995]). An exception exists only for cases where granting relief to a nonappealing party is necessary to give meaningful relief to the appealing party (see Cover v Cohen, 61 NY2d 261 , 277-278 [1984]; Hecht, 60 NY2d at 62 ).
Based on the foregoing principles, we conclude that plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged, at a minimum, that the sponsor undertook a duty in good faith to timely sell so many shares in the building as necessary to create a fully viable cooperative. The complaint asserts that the sponsor — by its initial offering plan and each of its 10 periodic amendments — offered for sale the shares in the cooperative corresponding to its 66 apartments, but instead retained a majority of those shares. The complaint narrates that the sponsor had represented that its expected profits would depend on market conditions and the length of time required to sell shares offered under the offering plan, but gave no hint that it would make a sizeable profit by retaining a majority of those shares and leasing apartments at market rates, free of the strictures of rent regulation. Similarly, the complaint states that the offering plan cautioned purchasers as to numerous investment risks, but did not mention the risk that the sponsor would keep most of the shares for itself. Based primarily on these allegations, plaintiffs assert that the parties could not have intended — and plaintiffs could not reasonably anticipate — that the sponsor would retain a majority of shares in the cooperative.
Moreover, the complaint alleges that by keeping a majority of shares, the sponsor defeated the purpose of the contract. Plaintiffs assert that by rejecting offers from prospective buyers and allowing its offering plan to lapse, the sponsor frustrated plaintiffs’ ability to resell their shares, interfered with the Co-op Board’s refinancing of the building’s mortgage
Because the sponsor’s documentary evidence does not clearly refute these assertions, and particularly in light of the sponsor’s duty imposed by the Attorney General not to abandon the offering plan after filing an effectiveness amendment (see 13 NYCRR 18.3 [r] [11]), we conclude that defendants’ CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss must fail.
In New York, all contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of performance (see e.g. Smith v General Acc. Ins. Co., 91 NY2d 648 , 652-653 [1998]; Dalton v Educational Testing Serv., 87 NY2d 384 , 389 [1995]; Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Neville v Hayden Publ. Co., 30 NY2d 34 , 45, rearg denied 30 NY2d 880 , cert denied 409 US 875 [1972]). This covenant embraces a pledge that “neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract” (Dalton, 87 NY2d at 389 , quoting Kirke La Shelle Co. v Armstrong Co., 263 NY 79 , 87 [1933]). While the duties of good faith and fair dealing do not imply obligations “inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship” (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293 , 304 [1983]), they do encompass “any promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included” (Rowe v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 46 NY2d 62 , 69 [1978], quoting 5 Williston, Contracts § 1293, at 3682 [rev ed 1937]). This is particularly true in cooperative conversions,
By spelling out the basis for their claim that the sponsor failed to exercise good faith and deal fairly in fulfilling the terms and promises contemplated by the offering plan, plaintiffs pleaded a valid cause of action for breach of contract. Specifically, plaintiffs pleaded that they reasonably understood the offering plan to state a duty, at the very least, to sell a sufficient number of shares in a timely manner so as to create a viable cooperative. We emphasize, however, that we address only the sufficiency of the contract cause of action and not its merits. We note that the Appellate Division went so far as to hold that the sponsor had undertaken a duty to dispose of the units within a reasonable time. The Court thus decided that issue and left open only the question of whether the sponsor’s 10-year delay was reasonable. At this preanswer stage of the litigation, we need not reach the merits of plaintiffs’ contract cause of action and therefore do not address the issue of whether, as alleged, the sponsor impliedly promised to sell all its unsold shares. We hold only that plaintiffs’ contract cause of action withstands the sponsor’s CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss.
We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and find them without merit.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Graffeo concur.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, etc.
Cases cited
- Sud v. Sud 211 AD2d 423 p. 145
- Dalton v. Educational Testing Service 87 NY2d 384 at 389 p. 145, p. 153
- Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. 58 NY2d 293 at 304 p. 145, p. 148, p. 153
- Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen, Inc. v. Schumacher 52 NY2d 105 p. 145
- W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri 77 NY2d 157 p. 145
- State v. Home Indemnity Co. 66 NY2d 669 p. 145
- Primex International Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 89 NY2d 594 p. 145
- Jarecki v. Shung Moo Louie 95 NY2d 665 p. 145
- Pajak v. Pajak 56 NY2d 394 p. 145, p. 148
- People v. Friedman 302 NY 75 p. 145, p. 148
- United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 US 144 p. 145
- Henry Modell & Co. v. Minister 68 NY2d 456 p. 145, p. 148
- Grossman v. Schenker 206 NY 466 p. 145, p. 146, p. 148
- Wood v. Duff-Gordon 222 NY 88 p. 145, p. 146, p. 148
- Miller v. Schloss 218 NY 400 p. 145
- Holy Properties Ltd. v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. 87 NY2d 130 p. 145, p. 147
- Maxton Builders, Inc. v. Lo Galbo 68 NY2d 373 p. 145, p. 147
- Paikoff v. Harris 185 Misc 2d 372 p. 146, p. 147
- Susser v. 200 East 36th Owners Corp. 262 AD2d 197 p. 146, p. 147
- Yatter v. William Morris Agency, Inc. 256 AD2d 260 p. 146
- 196 Owners Corp. v. Hampton Management Co. 227 AD2d 296 p. 146, p. 147
- Ely-Cruikshank Co. v. Bank of Montreal 81 NY2d 399 p. 146
- Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse 84 NY2d 535 p. 146
- CPC International Inc. v. McKesson 70 NY2d 268 p. 146, p. 147, p. 149
- Vermeer Owners, Inc. v. Guterman 78 NY2d 1114 at 1116 p. 146, p. 147, p. 149, p. 154
- Whitehall Tenants Corp. v. Estate of Olnick 213 AD2d 200 p. 146, p. 149
- Varo, Inc. v. Alvis PLC 261 AD2d 262 p. 146
- Steinberg v. Di-Geronimo 255 AD2d 204 p. 146
- Perl v. Smith Barney Inc. 230 AD2d 664 p. 146
- Wapnick v. Seven Park Avenue Corp. 240 AD2d 245 p. 146
- 61 West 62 Owners Corp. v. Harkness Apartment Owners Corp. 222 AD2d 358 p. 146, p. 147
- Rubenstein v. East River Tenants Corp. 139 AD2d 451 p. 146, p. 147, p. 149
- William C. Atwater & Co. v. Panama Railroad 246 NY 519 p. 146
- Tibbetts Contracting Corp. v. O & E Contracting Co. 15 NY2d 324 p. 146
- 1113 8th Avenue Owners Corp. v. Rivieccio 165 AD2d 714 p. 147
- Board of Managers of Fairways at North Hills Condominium v. Fairway at North Hills 193 AD2d 322 p. 147
- Gilligan v. Tishman Realty & Construction Co. 306 NY 974 p. 147
- Richards v. Kaskel 32 NY2d 524 p. 147
- Council for Owner Occupied Housing, Inc. v. Abrams 72 NY2d 553 p. 147
- Council for Owner Occupied Housing, Inc. v. Koch 119 Misc 2d 241 p. 147
- Council for Owner Occupied Housing, Inc. v. Koch 61 NY2d 942 p. 147
- People v. Federated Radio Corp. 244 NY 33 p. 147
- Abrams v. New York State & Local Employees' Retirement System 175 Misc 2d 257 p. 147
- Fumarelli v. Marsam Development, Inc. 92 NY2d 298 p. 147
- Geiser v. Maran 189 Misc 2d 442 p. 147
- Park West Village Associates v. Nishoika 187 Misc 2d 243 p. 147
- Fe Bland v. Two Trees Management Co. 66 NY2d 556 p. 147
- Bulova Watch Co. v. Celotex Corp. 46 NY2d 606 p. 147
- Schumann v. 250 Tenants Corp. 65 Misc 2d 253 p. 148
- 89 Christopher Inc. v. Joy 35 NY2d 213 p. 148
- People v. Coe 71 NY2d 852 p. 148
- Carpenter v. Board of Education 71 NY2d 832 p. 148
- Mennella v. Lopez-Torres 91 NY2d 474 p. 148
- Wieder v. Skala 80 NY2d 628 at 631 p. 148, p. 152
- Caceci v. Di Canio Construction Corp. 72 NY2d 52 p. 148
- Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc. 69 NY2d 329 p. 148
- Schmidt v. Magnetic Head Corp. 97 AD2d 151 p. 148
- Morlee Sales Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co. 9 NY2d 16 p. 148
- Heard v. Cuomo 80 NY2d 684 p. 148
- Express Industries & Terminal Corp. v. New York State Department of Transportation 93 NY2d 584 p. 148
- Perkins v. Smith 116 NY 441 p. 148
- People v. Reed 265 AD2d 56 p. 148
- Grover v. Martone 127 Misc 2d 40 p. 148
- Weisner v. 791 Park Avenue Corp. 6 NY2d 426 p. 148
- Rafe v. Hindin 29 AD2d 481 p. 148
- In re Lacaille 44 Misc 2d 370 p. 149
- Goldstone v. Constable 84 AD2d 519 p. 149
- B.S.L. One Owners Corp. v. Rubenstein 159 Misc 2d 903 p. 149
- Telemark Construction, Inc. v. Greenberg 205 AD2d 438 p. 149
- Webster's Red Seal Publications, Inc. v. Gilberton World-Wide Publications, Inc. 67 AD2d 339 p. 149
- Millard v. Millard 87 Misc 2d 477 p. 149
- 509 Sixth Avenue Corp. v. New York City Transit Authority 15 NY2d 48 p. 149
- 305 East 24th Owners Corp. v. Parman Co. 69 NY2d 991 p. 149
- Board of Managers v. Long Pond Investors, Inc. 233 AD2d 472 p. 149
- Board of Managers of Village House v. Frazier 55 NY2d 991 p. 149
- Board of Managers of Bayberry Greens Condominium v. Bayberry Greens Associates 174 AD2d 595 p. 149
- Sessa v. Trustees of Mortuary Fund of Local No. 1 85 Misc 2d 372 p. 149
- 511 West 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co. 285 AD2d 244 p. 151
- Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, Inc. 97 NY2d 46 at 54 p. 152
- Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg 43 NY2d 268 at 275 p. 152
- Leon v. Martinez 84 NY2d 83 at 87 p. 152
- Sokoloff v. Harriman Estates Development Corp. 96 NY2d 409 at 414 p. 152
- Smith v. General Accident Insurance 91 NY2d 648 at 652-653 p. 153
- Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Neville, Inc. v. Hayden Publishing Co. 30 NY2d 34 at 45 p. 153
- Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co. 263 NY 79 at 87 p. 153
- Rowe v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 46 NY2d 62 at 69 p. 153