---

Posted by JJ on May 31, 1999 at 23:43:34:

In Reply to: Re: New Rulings On Tenants Of Sponsor - continued posted by Mark Smith on May 31, 1999 at 02:52:46:

OK: the problem as I see it is: when they wrote the law, they really meant 'bona fide purchaser' which is someone who purchases with the intent of living there, hence the first decision using the AG's letter. (Sponsors don't purchase shares: they create them off the backs of rent regulated tenants.) But 352eeee only says 'purchasers', not 'bona fide purchasers' and 'owners' of shares, hence the 2 latest rulings, which, by the way, don't mention reading the coop bylaws for definitions. .

A little question: were the definition section and the other section written at two different times? Was one of them changed when they made eviction-conversions 50% and non-eviction-conversions 15%? (it used to be only eviction-conversions and 35% of the tenants had to purchase)

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: OK: the problem as I see it is: when they wrote the law, they really meant 'bona fide purchaser' which is someone who purchases with the intent of living there, hence the first decision using the AG's letter.  (Sponsors don't purchase shares: they create them off the backs of rent regulated tenants.)  But 352eeee only says 'purchasers', not 'bona fide purchasers' and 'owners' of shares, hence the 2 latest rulings, which, by the way, don't mention reading the coop bylaws for definitions. .

: A little question: were the definition section and the other section written at two different times? Was one of them changed when they made eviction-conversions 50% and non-eviction-conversions 15%? (it used to be only eviction-conversions and 35% of the tenants had to purchase) 


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---