Blumberg v. Landmark Colony at Oyster Bay Homeowner's Ass'n

68 A.D.3d 911, 890 N.Y.2d 329

This text of 68 A.D.3d 911 (Blumberg v. Landmark Colony at Oyster Bay Homeowner's Ass'n) 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
Blumberg v. Landmark Colony at Oyster Bay Homeowner's Ass'n, 68 A.D.3d 911, 890 N.Y.2d 329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

The defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiffs causes of action regarding the defendants’ alleged failure to maintain her condominium unit in accordance with the bylaws of the condominium association are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as the plaintiffs claims based on the same alleged failure were dismissed in a prior action (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]), and that the plaintiffs remaining cause of action has been rendered academic. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Frudenti, P.J., Covello, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Buechel v. Bain
766 N.E.2d 914 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 A.D.3d 911, 890 N.Y.2d 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumberg-v-landmark-colony-at-oyster-bay-homeowners-assn-nyappdiv-2009.