Mill Pond Condominium v. Landau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mill Pond Condominium v. Landau

216 A.D.2d 372, 628 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6267

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

DecidedJune 12, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 372 (Mill Pond Condominium v. Landau) 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

Mill Pond Condominium v. Landau, 216 A.D.2d 372, 628 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a lien for unpaid condominium common charges, the [373]*373defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 20, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and directed a trial on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. Pursuant to the declaration establishing the condominium, the defendants’ liability was established. At the trial, the defendants will have the opportunity to litigate their proportionate shares of liability based upon, inter alia, their respective use and occupancy of the common areas affected. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a lien for unpaid condominium common charges, the [373]*373defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 20, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and directed a trial on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. Pursuant to the declaration establishing the condominium, the defendants’ liability was established. At the trial, the defendants will have the opportunity to litigate their proportionate shares of liability based upon, inter alia, their respective use and occupancy of the common areas affected. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 372, 628 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mill-pond-condominium-v-landau-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack