Putative Class Action Lawsuit –

On August 14, 2015, the Company entered a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain related parties. Under the Settlement, Gyrodyne agreed that any sales of its properties would be effected only in arm's-length transactions at prices at or above their appraised values as of 2014.

As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the value of the remaining unsold properties exceeded the respective 2014 appraised values.

Article 78 Proceeding –

On April 26, 2022, the Incorporated Village of Head of the Harbor and certain other parties, commenced a special proceeding (the “Article 78 Proceeding”), against the Town of Smithtown and certain other parties, including the Company, seeking to annul the Town of Smithtown Planning Board’s (the “Planning Board”) determinations relating to the Flowerfield Subdivision Application. The Article 78 Proceeding was commenced by the filing of a petition (the “Petition”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, pursuant to Article 78 of the N.Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules. Specifically, the Petition seeks to annul the Planning Board’s (i) approval of a findings statement, pursuant to the SEQRA, dated September 16, 2021, and adopted by the Planning Board on March 30, 2022, concerning the Flowerfield Subdivision Application, and (ii) preliminary approval on March 30, 2022 of the Flowerfield Subdivision Application. The arguments made in the Petition are substantially similar to those made by opponents of the Flowerfield Subdivision Application during the SEQRA and subdivision process. The Company and the Town of Smithtown are vigorously defending the Planning Board’s determinations against the Petition. In June 2022, Gyrodyne and the Town of Smithtown filed motions to dismiss the Petition. During the third quarter of 2023, the Article 78 Proceeding was re-assigned to a different judge for the second time. On February 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order (the “Order”), denying the Motions in part and granting them in part. Specifically, the Order (i) denied the Motions as to three individual Petitioners and the St. James-Head of the Harbor Neighborhood Preservation Coalition, Inc., (ii) granted the Motions as to the remaining twenty (20) individual Petitioners and the Village of Head of the Harbor, (iii) denied the branch of Gyrodyne’s motion alleging that Petitioners failed to state a claim. On October 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued a ruling in favor of the Company dismissing the Article 78 petition in its entirety. On October 28, 2024, the Company received a notice of appeal filed by the petitioners in this proceeding seeking to appeal the court’s dismissal of the Article 78 petition, citing as grounds for appeal “whether the court erred in denying the petition and dismissed the Article 78 proceeding, and any and all other issues which may arise upon further review of the record on appeal”.

On November 12, 2024, the petitioners filed a notice of motion to renew and reargue, seeking to have the court direct the respondents to undertake a supplemental environmental impact statement to address retaining of storm water at the property being developed in light of a recent storm, and to annul the resolution approving the preliminary site plan.

On March 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order denying the appellants motion to stay enforcement of the order pending hearing and determination of appeal. On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order denying the Petitioners motion to renew and reargue. On April 16, 2025 the Petitioners filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the March 17, 2025 order denying the appellants motion to stay enforcement of the order dismissing the Petition pending the appeal.

On April 28, 2025 the Petitioners perfected their appeal on the original Petition. The Petitioners’ memorandum of law largely repeats their earlier position and arguments, which the Supreme Court previously found to be an insufficient basis for overturning the Planning Board’s determinations.  Gyrodyne will coordinate with the Town of Smithtown on promptly responding to the Petitioners’ appellate papers.

Pleadings filed in the Article 78 Proceeding may be accessed through a link (and related instructions) to the New York State Unified Court System which appears on the Company’s website at https://www.gyrodyne.com.

General –

In the normal course of business, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings. After reviewing all actions and proceedings pending against or involving the Company, management considers that any loss resulting from such proceedings individually or in the aggregate will not be material to the Company’s financial statements.