O'Neill v. 225 East 73rd Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. 225 East 73rd Owners Corp.

298 A.D.2d 239, 748 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9702

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 239 (O'Neill v. 225 East 73rd 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

O'Neill v. 225 East 73rd Owners Corp., 298 A.D.2d 239, 748 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, declared in defendant cooperative corporation’s favor that it owns the north roof terrace area and has the right to make rules and regulations for its use, that the rules and regulations for the north roof terrace were duly adopted by defendant and binding, awarded defendant attorneys’ fees in the amount of $287,488.05, and which brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 1, 2000, directing relief in defendant’s favor, as awarded in the aforesaid order and judgment (one paper), unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order entered November 1, 2000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing order and judgment.

The trial court, in consequence of a correct construction of the proprietary lease, found that plaintiffs failed to establish that they had been allocated the north terrace for their exclusive use or that defendant waived its right to use that area. The court also properly found that defendant was entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to paragraph 28 of the proprietary lease and that plaintiffs were not effectively relieved of their counsel fee obligation by reason of the payment of those fees by defendant’s insurance carrier (see Isaacs v Jefferson Tenants Corp., 270 AD2d 95).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, declared in defendant cooperative corporation’s favor that it owns the north roof terrace area and has the right to make rules and regulations for its use, that the rules and regulations for the north roof terrace were duly adopted by defendant and binding, awarded defendant attorneys’ fees in the amount of $287,488.05, and which brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 1, 2000, directing relief in defendant’s favor, as awarded in the aforesaid order and judgment (one paper), unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order entered November 1, 2000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing order and judgment.

The trial court, in consequence of a correct construction of the proprietary lease, found that plaintiffs failed to establish that they had been allocated the north terrace for their exclusive use or that defendant waived its right to use that area. The court also properly found that defendant was entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to paragraph 28 of the proprietary lease and that plaintiffs were not effectively relieved of their counsel fee obligation by reason of the payment of those fees by defendant’s insurance carrier (see Isaacs v Jefferson Tenants Corp., 270 AD2d 95).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 239, 748 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-225-east-73rd-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack