Berman v. Dominion Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berman v. Dominion Management Co.

50 A.D.3d 605, 859 N.Y.S.2d 407

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

DecidedApril 29, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 605 (Berman v. Dominion Management Co.) 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

Berman v. Dominion Management Co., 50 A.D.3d 605, 859 N.Y.S.2d 407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered July 10, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied that portion of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment that sought a hearing on legal fees, and granted defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the mixed results of this litigation, in which plaintiffs stipulated to resolve certain remediation claims, but also stipulated to discontinue their personal injury claims, and abandoned their claims based on breach of the lease, plaintiffs cannot be considered the prevailing party in this litigation (see Real Property Law § 234; Mosesson v 288/98 W. End Tenants Corp., 294 AD2d 283 [2002]).

As to the cross appeal, since the court granted defendant [606]*606board of managers’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, there is no necessity for a modification of the order. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered July 10, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied that portion of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment that sought a hearing on legal fees, and granted defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the mixed results of this litigation, in which plaintiffs stipulated to resolve certain remediation claims, but also stipulated to discontinue their personal injury claims, and abandoned their claims based on breach of the lease, plaintiffs cannot be considered the prevailing party in this litigation (see Real Property Law § 234; Mosesson v 288/98 W. End Tenants Corp., 294 AD2d 283 [2002]).

As to the cross appeal, since the court granted defendant [606]*606board of managers’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, there is no necessity for a modification of the order. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 605, 859 N.Y.S.2d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-dominion-management-co-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack