115-87 Owners Corp. v. Dolger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

115-87 Owners Corp. v. Dolger

201 A.D.2d 340, 608 N.Y.S.2d 838

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 10, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about June 4, 1993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and awarded it possession of defendants’ cooperative apartment, unanimously modified, on the law, to amend the order and judgment by including a 10 day cure period, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

IAS correctly found, in view of the no waiver clause and other circumstances, that plaintiff did not waive defendants’ violation of the proprietary lease in maintaining a professional practice in their apartment (see, Monarch Information Servs. v 161 William Assocs., 103 AD2d 703). However, the failure to provide a postjudgment cure period pursuant to RPAPL 753 (4) was error, and we modify accordingly (see, Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410, 414, citing Killington Investors v Leino, 148 AD2d 334, 336). We have considered the parties’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about June 4, 1993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and awarded it possession of defendants’ cooperative apartment, unanimously modified, on the law, to amend the order and judgment by including a 10 day cure period, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

IAS correctly found, in view of the no waiver clause and other circumstances, that plaintiff did not waive defendants’ violation of the proprietary lease in maintaining a professional practice in their apartment (see, Monarch Information Servs. v 161 William Assocs., 103 AD2d 703). However, the failure to provide a postjudgment cure period pursuant to RPAPL 753 (4) was error, and we modify accordingly (see, Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410, 414, citing Killington Investors v Leino, 148 AD2d 334, 336). We have considered the parties’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

115-87 Owners Corp. v. Dolger, 201 A.D.2d 340, 608 N.Y.S.2d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

201 A.D.2d 340 (115-87 Owners Corp. v. Dolger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related