West v. 332 East 84th Owners Corp.

68 A.D.3d 499, 889 N.Y.2d 449
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 10, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The record raises no issues of fact whether the board’s reason for denying plaintiffs’ request to construct a new bathroom in [500] their apartment, i.e., that it would violate a recently enacted building policy to prohibit “wet” construction over “dry” space, was legitimately related to the welfare of the cooperative and therefore a reasonable basis for withholding consent (see Seven Park Ave. Corp. v Green, 277 AD2d 123 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 853 [2001]; Rosenthal v One Hudson Park, 269 AD2d 144 [2000]). Plaintiffs submitted no evidence that the space below the proposed bathroom was not “dry” or that the policy prohibiting “wet-over-dry” construction was unreasonable or applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, McGuire, DeGrasse and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

West v. 332 East 84th Owners Corp., 68 A.D.3d 499, 889 N.Y.2d 449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

68 A.D.3d 499 (West v. 332 East 84th Owners Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perrault v. Village Dunes Apt. Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 5878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)