Board of Managers of the Garden Terrace Condominium v. Chiang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of the Garden Terrace Condominium v. Chiang

247 A.D.2d 237, 668 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 985

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 237 (Board of Managers of the Garden Terrace Condominium v. Chiang) 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 the Garden Terrace Condominium v. Chiang, 247 A.D.2d 237, 668 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 6, 1996, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants’ defenses and counterclaims, severed plaintiffs cause of action for attorneys’ fees, and directed entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $166,201.34, together with interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ jurisdictional defense was insufficiently supported and thus no hearing was warranted. The court also properly treated plaintiffs CPLR 3211 (b) motion as one for summary judgment and there was no need for notice of its intention to do so because there was no factual issue left to be decided by the court, defendants having admitted that they had not paid the common charges plaintiff seeks to recover. We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 6, 1996, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants’ defenses and counterclaims, severed plaintiffs cause of action for attorneys’ fees, and directed entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $166,201.34, together with interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ jurisdictional defense was insufficiently supported and thus no hearing was warranted. The court also properly treated plaintiffs CPLR 3211 (b) motion as one for summary judgment and there was no need for notice of its intention to do so because there was no factual issue left to be decided by the court, defendants having admitted that they had not paid the common charges plaintiff seeks to recover. We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 237, 668 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-the-garden-terrace-condominium-v-chiang-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack