Conniff v. 32 Gramercy Park Owners Corp.

91 A.D.3d 510, 936 N.Y.2d 204

Opinion

The dismissal should have been without prejudice because the court dismissed the complaint upon plaintiff’s default in failing to oppose the motion to dismiss (see Hernandez v St. Barnabas Hosp., 89 AD3d 457 [2011]; Aguilar v Jacoby, 34 AD3d 706, 708 [2006]). The Court did not address the merits of the motion.

The court properly denied Gramercy’s request for attorneys’ fees. Even assuming that Gramercy presented competent evidence to show that the lease provision on which it relies was included in the proprietary lease signed by plaintiff, that provision is inapplicable here because plaintiff was not alleged to be in default of the lease (see Dupuis v 424 E. 77th Owners Corp., 32 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Conniff v. 32 Gramercy Park Owners Corp., 91 A.D.3d 510, 936 N.Y.2d 204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

91 A.D.3d 510 (Conniff v. 32 Gramercy Park Owners Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dupuis v. 424 East 77th Owners Corp.
32 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Aguilar v. Jacoby
34 A.D.3d 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Hernandez v. St. Barnabas Hospital
89 A.D.3d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)