Tribeca Equity, Ltd. v. 19-21 Leonard Street Condominium

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tribeca Equity, Ltd. v. 19-21 Leonard Street Condominium

58 A.D.3d 414, 869 N.Y.S.2d 782

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.3d 414 (Tribeca Equity, Ltd. v. 19-21 Leonard Street 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

Tribeca Equity, Ltd. v. 19-21 Leonard Street Condominium, 58 A.D.3d 414, 869 N.Y.S.2d 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 24, 2007, after a nonjury trial, which, to the extent appealed from, declared title to the subject property to be held by defendant condominium, denied plaintiffs requests for a declaration of title in its name and for damages for lack of access to the property, and awarded defendants costs and expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to quiet title to real property, the trial court’s factual findings were supported by a fair interpretation of the [415]*415evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). The testimony of witnesses as to the purported mislabeling of the proposed unit IS as common space on the initial survey was found to be lacking in credibility. After reviewing relevant portions of the Real Property Law and all the documents submitted with respect to the sale of each condominium unit, the court properly held that while plaintiff was the prior owner of the cellar areas that became units IE and 1W, it was never the owner of the space designated as IS, which remained the property of the remaining condominium owners. That being the case, plaintiffs monetary damages claims were properly dismissed.

Defendants’ entitlement to costs, expenses and attorney fees was derived from the condominium bylaws and rules and regulations. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, 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 September 24, 2007, after a nonjury trial, which, to the extent appealed from, declared title to the subject property to be held by defendant condominium, denied plaintiffs requests for a declaration of title in its name and for damages for lack of access to the property, and awarded defendants costs and expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to quiet title to real property, the trial court’s factual findings were supported by a fair interpretation of the [415]*415evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). The testimony of witnesses as to the purported mislabeling of the proposed unit IS as common space on the initial survey was found to be lacking in credibility. After reviewing relevant portions of the Real Property Law and all the documents submitted with respect to the sale of each condominium unit, the court properly held that while plaintiff was the prior owner of the cellar areas that became units IE and 1W, it was never the owner of the space designated as IS, which remained the property of the remaining condominium owners. That being the case, plaintiffs monetary damages claims were properly dismissed.

Defendants’ entitlement to costs, expenses and attorney fees was derived from the condominium bylaws and rules and regulations. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 414, 869 N.Y.S.2d 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tribeca-equity-ltd-v-19-21-leonard-street-condominium-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack