13th & 14th St. Realty LLC v. Board of Mgrs. of the A Bldg. Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

13th & 14th St. Realty LLC v. Board of Mgrs. of the A Bldg. Condominium

132 A.D.3d 561, 17 N.Y.S.3d 867

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 22, 2015

Docket15942 155269/13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 561 (13th & 14th St. Realty LLC v. Board of Mgrs. of the A Bldg. Condominium) 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

13th & 14th St. Realty LLC v. Board of Mgrs. of the A Bldg. Condominium, 132 A.D.3d 561, 17 N.Y.S.3d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered June 2, 2014, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (Zyskind v FaceCake Mktg. Tech., Inc., 101 AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2012]). We agree with plaintiff’s argument that defendant, by making 60 monthly interest payments under a note, even after it was aware of plaintiff’s alleged wrongdoing, ratified the note and waived any defenses of fraud, self-dealing or breach of fiduciary duty (see Scharf v Idaho Farmers Mkt. Inc., 115 AD3d 500, 501-502 [1st Dept 2014]; see also Davis & Davis v Morson, 286 AD2d 584, 585 [1st Dept 2001]). We may consider plaintiff’s argument, which was raised during oral argument on the motion but was excluded from the parties’ briefs to the motion court, because it is determinative and because the record on appeal is sufficient to permit appellate review (Facie Libre Assoc. I, LLC v SecondMarket Holdings, Inc., 103 AD3d 565, 565 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 866 [2013]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered June 2, 2014, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (Zyskind v FaceCake Mktg. Tech., Inc., 101 AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2012]). We agree with plaintiff’s argument that defendant, by making 60 monthly interest payments under a note, even after it was aware of plaintiff’s alleged wrongdoing, ratified the note and waived any defenses of fraud, self-dealing or breach of fiduciary duty (see Scharf v Idaho Farmers Mkt. Inc., 115 AD3d 500, 501-502 [1st Dept 2014]; see also Davis & Davis v Morson, 286 AD2d 584, 585 [1st Dept 2001]). We may consider plaintiff’s argument, which was raised during oral argument on the motion but was excluded from the parties’ briefs to the motion court, because it is determinative and because the record on appeal is sufficient to permit appellate review (Facie Libre Assoc. I, LLC v SecondMarket Holdings, Inc., 103 AD3d 565, 565 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 866 [2013]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 561, 17 N.Y.S.3d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/13th-14th-st-realty-llc-v-board-of-mgrs-of-the-a-bldg-condominium-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack