Board of Managers of Manhattan Valley Townhouses v. Murovich

273 A.D.2d 11, 708 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6101
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 1, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 11 (Board of Managers of Manhattan Valley Townhouses v. Murovich) 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 Manhattan Valley Townhouses v. Murovich, 273 A.D.2d 11, 708 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered August 27, 1999, which, upon plaintiff condominium’s motion for summary judgment, declared in its favor that defendants owner and occupant of the subject unit violated plaintiffs by-laws and rules and regulations by installing black plexiglás over the iron gates enclosing the vestibule under the stairway in front of the door to their unit without obtaining plaintiffs prior consent, and granted related injunctive relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ argument that plaintiff waived its right to enforce the “prior consent” rule as against their plexiglass installation because it did not enforce the rule as against two other unit owners who installed black plexiglás over their gates was properly rejected by the IAS Court in view of the plain differences between the entrances of the units being compared. In particular, the gates over the doors to the two other units are flush with the building wall and therefore, unlike the gates to defendants’ unit, which are at right angles to the building wall, do not encompass a vestibule, admittedly a common element as to which no alterations may be made without plaintiffs prior consent. No issue of fact as to a waiver is raised absent any evidence of a plexiglás installation to a unit configured like defendants’ unit. We have considered and rejected defendants’ other arguments. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Loch Sheldrake Beach and Tennis Inc. v. Akulich
141 A.D.3d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Renauto v. Board of Directors of Valimar Homeowners Assn., Inc.
2004 NY Slip Op 24252 (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, 2004)
Renauto v. Board of Directors of Valimar Homeowners Ass'n
5 Misc. 3d 247 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.D.2d 11, 708 N.Y.S.2d 111, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-manhattan-valley-townhouses-v-murovich-nyappdiv-2000.