1050 Fifth Ave., Inc. v. May

247 A.D.2d 243, 668 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 980
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 243 (1050 Fifth Ave., Inc. v. May) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
1050 Fifth Ave., Inc. v. May, 247 A.D.2d 243, 668 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered September 13, 1996, which, in a declaratory judgment action involving whether plaintiff cooperative corporation or defendant tenant/shareholder is the owner of the roof area adjacent to defendant’s apartment, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, declined to declare who was the owner of such roof area, unanimously modified, on the law, and upon a search of the record, to declare that plaintiff is the owner of such roof area, and to enjoin defendant from using such area as a terrace, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered March 27, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, dismissed defendant’s first counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There are no issues of fact requiring a trial. Against clear' documentary evidence, to wit, the offering plan, building plans and the proprietary lease, showing that the roof area in question is not part of the demised apartment, defendant offers only that it belongs to her because she has been openly and [244]*244notoriously using it as a terrace for 30 years. This ignores the provision of the proprietary lease that any shareholder use of space outside the shareholder’s apartment is pursuant to a revocable license granted by the owner (see, Jossel v Filicori, 235 AD2d 205). In view of the foregoing, defendant’s counterclaim for damages is without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alford v. 72nd Tenants Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 30822(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Fairmont Tenants Corp. v. Braff
2018 NY Slip Op 4083 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Palmer v. WSC Riverside Drive, LLC
61 A.D.3d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 243, 668 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1050-fifth-ave-inc-v-may-nyappdiv-1998.