Court Opinion

ID: 9894075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 16:09:01.85587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:29.635277
License: Public Domain

Matter of Community Church of N.Y. v Duckett (2023 NY Slip Op 05471)

Matter of Community Church of N.Y. v Duckett

2023 NY Slip Op 05471

Decided on October 31, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 31, 2023

Before: Kapnick, J.P., Gesmer, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, JJ. 

Index No. 154733/22 Appeal No. 923 Case No. 2022-04831 

[*1]In the Matter of the Community Church of New York, Also known as The Community Church (Second Congregational Unitarian Church of the City of New York) etc., Petitioner-Respondent,
vGeorge J. Duckett, Objector-Appellant, New York Office of the Attorney General, Respondent-Respondent.

George J. Duckett, appellant pro se.
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York (Seth F. Schinfeld of counsel), for The Community Church of New York, respondent.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Anthony R. Raduazo of counsel), for New York Office of the Attorney General, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence L. Love, J.), entered July 29, 2022, which granted the petition pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511 for court approval authorizing the lease and sale of substantially all of its real property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Objector fails to show that the consideration to be received by petitioner and the terms of the transaction that Supreme Court approved were not fair and reasonable to petitioner or that petitioner's purpose or the interests of its members would not be promoted by the transaction (see Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 511 [d]; 64th Assoc., L.L.C. v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 2 NY3d 585, 590 [2004]). Indeed, Supreme Court noted that the New York State Attorney General's office "did not object . . . and confirmed that all appeared in order."
We have considered objector's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 31, 2023