Board of Managers of 2121 Shore Condominium v. Estate of Mhatre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of 2121 Shore Condominium v. Estate of Mhatre

63 A.D.3d 867, 880 N.Y.S.2d 528

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 867 (Board of Managers of 2121 Shore Condominium v. Estate of Mhatre) 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

Board of Managers of 2121 Shore Condominium v. Estate of Mhatre, 63 A.D.3d 867, 880 N.Y.S.2d 528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover unpaid condominium common charges and related fees, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 12, 2008, as granted its motion for reimbursement of additional counsel fees and expenses only to the extent of awarding the sum of $5,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances here, we find no basis to disturb the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for reimbursement of additional counsel fees and expenses only to the extent of awarding the sum of $5,000, to supplement the prior award of counsel fees and expenses in the foreclosure judgment (see Miller Realty Assoc. v Amendola, 51 AD3d 987, 990 [2008]; Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v PG&E Tex. VGM, 284 AD2d 253, 254 [2001]; Orix Credit Alliance v Grace Indus., 261 AD2d 521, 522 [1999]; Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520 [1996]). Rivera, J.P., Miller, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover unpaid condominium common charges and related fees, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 12, 2008, as granted its motion for reimbursement of additional counsel fees and expenses only to the extent of awarding the sum of $5,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances here, we find no basis to disturb the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for reimbursement of additional counsel fees and expenses only to the extent of awarding the sum of $5,000, to supplement the prior award of counsel fees and expenses in the foreclosure judgment (see Miller Realty Assoc. v Amendola, 51 AD3d 987, 990 [2008]; Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v PG&E Tex. VGM, 284 AD2d 253, 254 [2001]; Orix Credit Alliance v Grace Indus., 261 AD2d 521, 522 [1999]; Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520 [1996]). Rivera, J.P., Miller, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 867, 880 N.Y.S.2d 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-2121-shore-condominium-v-estate-of-mhatre-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack