Forest Hills Gardens Corp. v. Kamparosyan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forest Hills Gardens Corp. v. Kamparosyan

63 A.D.3d 879, 880 N.Y.S.2d 524

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 879 (Forest Hills Gardens Corp. v. Kamparosyan) 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

Forest Hills Gardens Corp. v. Kamparosyan, 63 A.D.3d 879, 880 N.Y.S.2d 524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid maintenance charges, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated April 1, 2008, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action to the extent that they sought to recover unpaid annual maintenance charges beginning in 2001. • ■

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff established that the defendant’s decedent was liable, on the basis of an implied contract, for unpaid annual maintenance charges for the year 2001 and onward (see Seaview Assn. of Fire Is. v Williams, 69 NY2d 987, 989 [1987]; Douglas Manor Assn. v Alimaras, 215 AD2d 522, 523 [1995]; Douglas Manor Assn. v Popovich, 167 AD2d 499, 500 [1990]; Fieldston Prop. Owners Assn. v Decorative Trends, 83 Misc 2d 685, 686 [1975], affd 56 AD2d 525 [1977]; cf. CPLR 213 [2]; 542 Holding Corp. v Prince Fashions, Inc., 46 AD3d 309, 310-311 [2007]; Moors v Hall, 143 AD2d 336, 339-340 [1988]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to his decedent’s liability for unpaid maintenance charges for those years. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action to the extent that they sought to recover unpaid annual maintenance charges beginning in 2001.

[880]*880The defendant’s remaining contentions either are without merit, refer to matter dehors the record, or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Fisher, J.E, Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid maintenance charges, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated April 1, 2008, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action to the extent that they sought to recover unpaid annual maintenance charges beginning in 2001. • ■

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff established that the defendant’s decedent was liable, on the basis of an implied contract, for unpaid annual maintenance charges for the year 2001 and onward (see Seaview Assn. of Fire Is. v Williams, 69 NY2d 987, 989 [1987]; Douglas Manor Assn. v Alimaras, 215 AD2d 522, 523 [1995]; Douglas Manor Assn. v Popovich, 167 AD2d 499, 500 [1990]; Fieldston Prop. Owners Assn. v Decorative Trends, 83 Misc 2d 685, 686 [1975], affd 56 AD2d 525 [1977]; cf. CPLR 213 [2]; 542 Holding Corp. v Prince Fashions, Inc., 46 AD3d 309, 310-311 [2007]; Moors v Hall, 143 AD2d 336, 339-340 [1988]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to his decedent’s liability for unpaid maintenance charges for those years. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action to the extent that they sought to recover unpaid annual maintenance charges beginning in 2001.

[880]*880The defendant’s remaining contentions either are without merit, refer to matter dehors the record, or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Fisher, J.E, Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 879, 880 N.Y.S.2d 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forest-hills-gardens-corp-v-kamparosyan-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack