Shore Park Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Seibert

277 A.D.2d 304, 715 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11778

This text of 277 A.D.2d 304 (Shore Park Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Seibert) 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
Shore Park Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Seibert, 277 A.D.2d 304, 715 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a lien on certain real property for unpaid common charges, the defendants James A. Seibert and Barbara J. Seibert appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated August 23, 1999, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them. .

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[305]*305The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants. In support of its motion, the plaintiff sustained its initial burden by submitting proof of the lien and demonstrating the appellants’ failure to pay the common charges (see, Rivermist Assn. v Davis, 251 AD2d 1039; Mahopac Natl. Bank v Baisley, 244 AD2d 466, 467; Metropolitan Distrib. Servs. v DiLascio, 176 AD2d 312). It was then incumbent upon the appellants to assert any defenses raising a question of fact as to their default on the common charges (see, Marton Assocs. v Vitale, 172 AD2d 501, 502). The appellants’ assertion that they ceased making payments due to the plaintiffs failure to increase the size" of their boat slip was insufficient to defeat the motion (see, Rivermist Assn. v Davis, supra; Board of Mgrs. v Baker, 244 AD2d 229; cf., Residential Bd. of Mgrs. v Berman, 213 AD2d 206).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Marton Associates v. Vitale
172 A.D.2d 501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Metropolitan Distribution Services, Inc. v. DiLascio
176 A.D.2d 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Residential Board of Managers v. Berman
213 A.D.2d 206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Board of Managers of the 200 West 109 Condominium v. Baker
244 A.D.2d 229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Mahopac National Bank v. Baisley
244 A.D.2d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Rivermist Ass'n v. Davis
251 A.D.2d 1039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 304, 715 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shore-park-estates-homeowners-assn-v-seibert-nyappdiv-2000.