Opinion
May 26, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
The plaintiffs do not dispute that the Management Agreement, governing the family business of managing an eleven-floor office building in Manhattan, bars the partition they seek if its provisions for restricting transfer of ownership are valid. These provisions do not violate the rule against perpetuities (see, EPTL 9-1.1) because the ongoing management of a multi-tenant office building in New York City is the type of modern legal transaction that justifies exempting it from the operation of the rule and the validity of the preemptive provisions should instead be judged by applying the common-law rule against unreasonable restraints (Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v. Bruken Realty Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 156, 166). The plaintiffs have not shown that the restraints are unreasonable as to price when they ensure market value (see, Wraight v. Estate of Neu, 155 A.D.2d 904), or as to purpose when the restraints relate to the "peculiar characteristics" of family ownership of a commercial building (Anderson v. 50 E. 72nd St. Condominium, 119 A.D.2d 73, 79, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 743).
We have considered the plaintiffs' remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.