Brito v. Board of Mgrs. Maple Arms Townhouse

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Brito v. Board of Mgrs. Maple Arms Townhouse

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 6, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50932(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Brito v. Board of Mgrs. Maple Arms Townhouse (Brito v. Board of Mgrs. Maple Arms Townhouse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brito v. Board of Mgrs. Maple Arms Townhouse, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Anthony P. Brito, Appellant,

against

Board of Managers Maple Arms Townhouse, Respondent.

Anthony P. Brito, appellant pro se. Taylor, Eldridge & Endres, P.C. (Edward M. Taylor of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Joseph B. Girardi, J.), entered July 11, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff owns a residential first-floor apartment in a condominium; a terrace attached to his apartment is a common element of the condominium but is reserved for the exclusive use of plaintiff's condominium apartment. Defendant is the board of managers of the condominium. Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 based on defendant's removal, and subsequent failure to restore, a ramp that lay within the condominium's common area and connected the terrace attached to plaintiff's apartment to the condominium's common outdoor recreation area. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action.

Although plaintiff brought this action to recover the principal sum of $5,000, which sum is within the Small Claims Court's monetary jurisdiction (see UDCA 1801), on appeal, plaintiff has limited the relief he seeks to an order compelling defendant to replace the ramp and has abandoned his claim for monetary damages. As the relief that plaintiff seeks on appeal is unavailable in a small claims action (see id.), we find no basis to disturb the judgment dismissing the action (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

GARGUILO, J.P., TOLBERT and EMERSON, JJ.., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 06, 2019

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

Anthony P. Brito, Appellant,

against

Board of Managers Maple Arms Townhouse, Respondent.

Anthony P. Brito, appellant pro se. Taylor, Eldridge & Endres, P.C. (Edward M. Taylor of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Joseph B. Girardi, J.), entered July 11, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff owns a residential first-floor apartment in a condominium; a terrace attached to his apartment is a common element of the condominium but is reserved for the exclusive use of plaintiff's condominium apartment. Defendant is the board of managers of the condominium. Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $5,000 based on defendant's removal, and subsequent failure to restore, a ramp that lay within the condominium's common area and connected the terrace attached to plaintiff's apartment to the condominium's common outdoor recreation area. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action.

Although plaintiff brought this action to recover the principal sum of $5,000, which sum is within the Small Claims Court's monetary jurisdiction (see UDCA 1801), on appeal, plaintiff has limited the relief he seeks to an order compelling defendant to replace the ramp and has abandoned his claim for monetary damages. As the relief that plaintiff seeks on appeal is unavailable in a small claims action (see id.), we find no basis to disturb the judgment dismissing the action (see UDCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

GARGUILO, J.P., TOLBERT and EMERSON, JJ.., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 06, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brito v. Board of Mgrs. Maple Arms Townhouse, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brito-v-board-of-mgrs-maple-arms-townhouse-nyappterm-2019.