Board of Managers of the Reade Chambers Condominium v. 71 RC Property, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers of the Reade Chambers Condominium v. 71 RC Property, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 5569, 152 A.D.3d 425, 58 N.Y.S.3d 361

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2017

Docket4434 651236/16

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5569 (Board of Managers of the Reade Chambers Condominium v. 71 RC Property, LLC) 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 Reade Chambers Condominium v. 71 RC Property, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 5569, 152 A.D.3d 425, 58 N.Y.S.3d 361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen M. Coin, J.), entered May 5, 2016, which denied defendants-appellants’ (the sponsor defendants) motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and a declaration of easement, and denied their application to cancel a notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the sponsor defendants breached their contractual obligations under the offering plan by failing to correct, repair or replace the defective conditions in the condominium building’s garage, which caused unit owners who purchased parking spaces in the garage to have to drive over the last unsold parking space to enter and exit the garage and their own spaces safely and reasonably. These allegations state causes of action for breach of contract and for a declaration that plaintiff has an implied easement of necessity over the unsold parking space (see Simone v Heidelberg, 9 NY3d 177 [2007]). The sponsor defendants’ documentary evidence does not conclusively provide a defense to these claims.

*426 The motion court properly left the notice of pendency undisturbed (CPLR 6501; see Piccirillo v Ravenal, 161 AD2d 253 [1st Dept 1990], lv dismissed 76 NY2d 935 [1990]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen M. Coin, J.), entered May 5, 2016, which denied defendants-appellants’ (the sponsor defendants) motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and a declaration of easement, and denied their application to cancel a notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the sponsor defendants breached their contractual obligations under the offering plan by failing to correct, repair or replace the defective conditions in the condominium building’s garage, which caused unit owners who purchased parking spaces in the garage to have to drive over the last unsold parking space to enter and exit the garage and their own spaces safely and reasonably. These allegations state causes of action for breach of contract and for a declaration that plaintiff has an implied easement of necessity over the unsold parking space (see Simone v Heidelberg, 9 NY3d 177 [2007]). The sponsor defendants’ documentary evidence does not conclusively provide a defense to these claims.

*426 The motion court properly left the notice of pendency undisturbed (CPLR 6501; see Piccirillo v Ravenal, 161 AD2d 253 [1st Dept 1990], lv dismissed 76 NY2d 935 [1990]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5569, 152 A.D.3d 425, 58 N.Y.S.3d 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-the-reade-chambers-condominium-v-71-rc-property-llc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack