Conniff v. 32 Gramercy Park Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conniff v. 32 Gramercy Park Owners Corp.

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

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 510 (Conniff v. 32 Gramercy Park Owners Corp.) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 510, 936 N.Y.2d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conniff-v-32-gramercy-park-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack