Board of Managers of Oceana Condominium No. Four v. Akodes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of Oceana Condominium No. Four v. Akodes

71 A.D.3d 812, 895 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 812 (Board of Managers of Oceana Condominium No. Four v. Akodes) 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 Oceana Condominium No. Four v. Akodes, 71 A.D.3d 812, 895 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant violated the bylaws of a condominium known as Oceana Condominium No. Four, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 23, 2008, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant owns an apartment in a condominium building known as Oceana Condominium No. Four, which is run by the plaintiff Board of Managers of Oceana Condominium No. Four (hereinafter the Board). The defendant sought approval to install a central air conditioning unit in his apartment. The Board, on the advice of its engineer, denied his request. The defendant nonetheless installed the unit, and the Board com[813]*813menced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant violated the bylaws of the condominium. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the approval for his air conditioning unit had been unreasonably withheld. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion.

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any triable issues of fact from the case (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment since a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the Board reasonably withheld its approval for the defendant’s air conditioning unit (see Minoff v Irvington Estates Owners, 232 AD2d 616, 617 [1996]; Stowe v 19 E. 88th St., 257 AD2d 355, 356 [1999]; Demas v 325 W. End Ave. Corp., 127 Ad2d 476, 478 [1987]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant violated the bylaws of a condominium known as Oceana Condominium No. Four, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 23, 2008, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant owns an apartment in a condominium building known as Oceana Condominium No. Four, which is run by the plaintiff Board of Managers of Oceana Condominium No. Four (hereinafter the Board). The defendant sought approval to install a central air conditioning unit in his apartment. The Board, on the advice of its engineer, denied his request. The defendant nonetheless installed the unit, and the Board com[813]*813menced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant violated the bylaws of the condominium. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the approval for his air conditioning unit had been unreasonably withheld. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion.

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any triable issues of fact from the case (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment since a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the Board reasonably withheld its approval for the defendant’s air conditioning unit (see Minoff v Irvington Estates Owners, 232 AD2d 616, 617 [1996]; Stowe v 19 E. 88th St., 257 AD2d 355, 356 [1999]; Demas v 325 W. End Ave. Corp., 127 Ad2d 476, 478 [1987]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 812, 895 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-oceana-condominium-no-four-v-akodes-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack