Rosenthal v. Board of Mgrs. of the Charleston Condominium

189 N.Y.S.3d 163, 216 A.D.3d 442, 2023 NY Slip Op 02396
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 4, 2023
DocketIndex No. 156072/21 Appeal No. 182 Case No. 2022-01727
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 N.Y.S.3d 163 (Rosenthal v. Board of Mgrs. of the Charleston Condominium) 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
Rosenthal v. Board of Mgrs. of the Charleston Condominium, 189 N.Y.S.3d 163, 216 A.D.3d 442, 2023 NY Slip Op 02396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Rosenthal v Board of Mgrs. of the Charleston Condominium (2023 NY Slip Op 02396)
Rosenthal v Board of Mgrs. of the Charleston Condominium
2023 NY Slip Op 02396
Decided on May 04, 2023
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: May 04, 2023
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

Index No. 156072/21 Appeal No. 182 Case No. 2022-01727

[*1]Julie Rosenthal, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

The Board of Managers of the Charleston Condominium, Defendant-Appellant.


Braverman Greenspun P.C., New York (Drew E. Pakett of counsel), for appellant.

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J), entered March 21, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The allegations in the complaint, as amplified by plaintiff's affidavit and the accompanying exhibits submitted in opposition to defendant's motion, were sufficiently particular to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty (see CPLR 3013; High Definition MRI, P.C. v Travelers Cos., Inc., 137 AD3d 602, 602-603 [1st Dept 2016]; see also Parker Waichman LLP v Squier, Knapp & Dunn Communications, Inc., 138 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2016]). Accepted as true, and afforded every possible favorable inference (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), they show that defendant board failed to promptly and adequately address plaintiff's continuous complaints of unsanitary water issues in her condominium unit, in breach of their duty to maintain the building's common plumbing and water services.

The allegations that defendant failed to comply with its obligations under the condominium's bylaws to maintain and repair the building's piping and water system sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract. Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff had identified the applicable provisions of the bylaws in the complaint.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 4, 2023



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

Related

Roth v. Board of Mgrs. of 299 W. 12th St. Condominium
2025 NY Slip Op 06670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Roth v. Board of Mgrs. of 299 W. 12th St. Condominium
2025 NY Slip Op 30003(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 N.Y.S.3d 163, 216 A.D.3d 442, 2023 NY Slip Op 02396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-board-of-mgrs-of-the-charleston-condominium-nyappdiv-2023.