Wilmington Trust v. 17 Battery Place Condominium
This text of Wilmington Trust v. 17 Battery Place Condominium (Wilmington Trust v. 17 Battery Place 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Wilmington Trust v 17 Battery Place Condominium
2026 NY Slip Op 04163
June 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Wilmington Trust, etc., Respondent,
v
The 17 Battery Place Condominium, Appellant, Nyack 2 Washington LLC, et al., Defendants.
Decided and Entered: June 30, 2026
Index No. 850020/24|Appeal No. 6986|Case No. 2025-07556|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, O'neill Levy, JJ.
Starr Associates LLP, New York (Ryan J. Foley of counsel), for appellant.
Holland & Knight LLP, New York (Vivian M. Arias of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn, III, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined that plaintiff's mortgage lien had priority over defendant The 17 Battery Place Condominium's common charge lien, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and denied 17 Battery Place's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment based on its finding that plaintiff's mortgage, which was recorded in 2016, had priority over the 2023 common charge lien filed by defendant 17 Battery Place. Real Property Law § 339-z does not grant an exception for "commercial" condominiums, but for exclusively "non-residential" condominiums. It is undisputed that the condominium here was being used, at least in part, for residential purposes. We note that the court's focus on the use of the property is consistent with both the legislative history of Real Property Law § 339-z and other sections of the Condominium Act (Real Property Law § 339-d et seq.).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wilmington Trust v. 17 Battery Place Condominium, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilmington-trust-v-17-battery-place-condominium-nyappdiv-2026.