Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. v. Penkovsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. v. Penkovsky

100 A.D.3d 577, 954 N.Y.S.2d 451

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 577 (Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. v. Penkovsky) 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

Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. v. Penkovsky, 100 A.D.3d 577, 954 N.Y.S.2d 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 9, 2012, which granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for ejectment and struck defendants-appellants’ (defendants) answer and counterclaims, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the answer and counterclaims, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Ejectment was properly based on defendants’ repeated failures to comply with orders directing payment of use and occupancy, which was a condition of their continued occupancy of their cooperative apartment (see Rose Assoc. v Johnson, 247 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1998]). However, plaintiff did not move to strike the answer and counterclaims, and there was no authority for doing so. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, DeGrasse, Román and Gische, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 9, 2012, which granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for ejectment and struck defendants-appellants’ (defendants) answer and counterclaims, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the answer and counterclaims, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Ejectment was properly based on defendants’ repeated failures to comply with orders directing payment of use and occupancy, which was a condition of their continued occupancy of their cooperative apartment (see Rose Assoc. v Johnson, 247 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1998]). However, plaintiff did not move to strike the answer and counterclaims, and there was no authority for doing so. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, DeGrasse, Román and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 577, 954 N.Y.S.2d 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/park-terrace-gardens-inc-v-penkovsky-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack