Village of Hempstead v. Taliercio

8 A.D.3d 476, 778 N.Y.S.2d 519, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8495
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 476 (Village of Hempstead v. Taliercio) 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
Village of Hempstead v. Taliercio, 8 A.D.3d 476, 778 N.Y.S.2d 519, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action for a permanent injunction barring the defendants from operating the subject house as a rooming house in violation of the Code of the Village of Hempstead § 48-1A, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated June 6, 2003, which denied its motion, in effect, for leave to substitute Russell Oliveri, as executor of the estate of Peter Pirinea for the deceased party defendant Peter Pirinea and to amend the caption accordingly, and granted the cross motion of the defendant Julius T. Taliercio to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, on the ground that it was academic.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the plaintiffs sole purpose in making its motion, in effect, for leave to substitute Russell Oliveri, as executor of the estate of Peter Pirinea for the deceased party defendant Peter Pirinea, was to pursue the recovery of an attorney’s fee.

“In general, only a prevailing party is entitled to recover an attorney’s fee” and “[t]o be considered a prevailing party, a party must be successful with respect to the central relief sought” (Fatsis v 360 Clinton Ave. Tenants Corp., 272 AD2d 571 [2000]; see Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410, 415 [1993]; Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491 [1989]; 25 E. 83 Corp. v 83rd St. Assoc., 213 AD2d 269 [1995]). The plaintiff was not a prevailing party since the subject house, which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were operating as an illegal rooming house, was sold in March 2002. Thus, the action for a permanent injunction barring the defendants from operating the house as a rooming house was rendered academic. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion and granted the cross motion. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Amato v. Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp.
201 A.D.3d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Milton R.
2021 NY Slip Op 04975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Blinds to Go (U.S.), Inc. v. Times Plaza Dev., L.P.
2021 NY Slip Op 08163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Loughlin v. Meghji
2020 NY Slip Op 05196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
DKR Mortgage Asset Trust 1 v. Rivera
130 A.D.3d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
ProHealth Care Associates, LLP v. Prince
101 A.D.3d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Kudler v. Truffelman
93 A.D.3d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Luis Lopez & Son's, Inc. v. Dannie's Auto Cake
61 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Garza v. 508 West 112th Street, Inc.
22 Misc. 3d 920 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Mancheski v. GGCR Inc.
41 A.D.3d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Babylon Village Equities v. Mitchell
11 Misc. 3d 84 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 A.D.3d 476, 778 N.Y.S.2d 519, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-hempstead-v-taliercio-nyappdiv-2004.