Nevel v. Shelter Island Heights Property Owners Corp.

204 A.D.2d 700, 613 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5756
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 31, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 700 (Nevel v. Shelter Island Heights Property 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
Nevel v. Shelter Island Heights Property Owners Corp., 204 A.D.2d 700, 613 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring (1) that certain covenants contained in the deeds relating to the plaintiffs property run with the land, and (2) that fees charged by the defendant in excess of those stated in the covenants violate the terms of the covenants, the plaintiff [701]*701appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated June 8, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on its first counterclaim to recover damages for the plaintiff’s failure to pay for water and sewer services provided by the defendant, and awarded the defendant damages in the principal sum of $6,730.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When the plaintiff, who knew that the defendant provided services for the benefit of community residents, did not dispute receipt of such services, an implied contract resulted obligating him to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining those services (see, Seaview Assn. v Williams, 69 NY2d 987, 989; Sea Gate Assn. v Fleischer, 211 NYS2d 767). Since the covenants contained in the plaintiff’s deeds do not mention charges for water or sewer services, the defendant’s charges for such services were not limited by the covenants.

The plaintiff did not dispute receiving such water and sewer services from the defendant. Although the plaintiff did initially raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to certain charges, the defendant withdrew its claim to the disputed charges. Thus, the court properly determined that there were no triable issues of fact, and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its first counterclaim (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bluff Point Townhouse Owners Association, Inc. v. Kapsokefalos
129 A.D.3d 1267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Board of Directors of Millennium Homeowners Ass'n v. Bosco
8 Misc. 3d 950 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 A.D.2d 700, 613 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nevel-v-shelter-island-heights-property-owners-corp-nyappdiv-1994.