Cave v. Riverbend Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 October 2012 |
| Citation | 951 N.Y.S.2d 758,99 A.D.3d 748,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06773 |
| Parties | Gail CAVE, etc., appellant, v. RIVERBEND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., respondents, et al., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Richard W. Fulfree, Yonkers, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas M. Bona, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Michael Kestenbaum of counsel), for respondents Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., and Westchester Property Management Group, Inc.
Feerick Lynch MacCartney PLLC, South Nyack, N.Y. (Christopher J. Walsh of counsel), for respondent Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., on the counterclaims.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ARIEL E. BELEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain fines and fees imposed by the defendant Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., are null and void, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered July 8, 2011, as (a) denied her motion for summary judgment, inter alia, declaring that certain fines and fees imposed by the defendant Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., are null and void, (b) granted the cross motion of the defendants Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., and Westchester Property Management Group, Inc., for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the fines and fees imposed by the defendant Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., are not null and void, and (c) granted that branch of the separate cross motion of the defendant Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of its counterclaims as sought to recover unpaid common charges, fines, and fees other than attorney's fees.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the fines and fees imposed by the defendant Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc., are not null and void.
The plaintiff is the owner of a unit at the Riverbend Condominium I in Peekskill, New York. The unit owners within Riverbend Condominiums I and II are members of the defendant Riverbend Homeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter the Association), which is governed by a board of directors (hereinafter the Board) consisting of the boards of managers of Riverbend Condominiums I and II. The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the Association and the defendant Westchester Property Management Group, Inc. (hereinafter Westchester), seeking, among other things, a judgment declaring that certain fees and fines imposed by the Association are null and void. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and granted the cross motion of the Association and Westchester (hereinafter together the moving defendants) for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the fees and fines are not null and void. In addition, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the Association's separate cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of its counterclaims as sought to recover unpaid common charges, fines, and fees other than attorney's fees. The plaintiff appeals, and we affirm the order insofar as appealed from.
Pursuant to the bylaws of Condominium I and the Association, the Board has broad authority, inter alia, to collect common charges and expenses from the unit owners, to adopt and amend reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use of the units and the common elements, and to levy fines for violationsof the rules and regulations. Moreover, the bylaws...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Managers of Fishkill Woods Condo. v. Gottlieb
...of Levandusky v. One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530, 539, 554 N.Y.S.2d 807, 553 N.E.2d 1317 ; Cave v. Riverbend Homeowners Assn., Inc., 99 A.D.3d 748, 750, 951 N.Y.S.2d 758 ; Schoninger v. Yardarm Beach Homeowners' Assn., 134 A.D.2d 1, 10, 523 N.Y.S.2d 523 ). "Under the business judgm......
-
Waterways At Bay Pointe Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Waterways Dev. Corp.
...of Cohan v. Board of Directors of 700 Shore Rd. Waters Edge, Inc.,108 A.D.3d 697, 699, 969 N.Y.S.2d 547; Cave v. Riverbend Homeowners Assn., Inc.,99 A.D.3d 748, 951 N.Y.S.2d 758). Here, the defendants' defense is precisely that the plaintiff's budget was not prepared in good faith and that ......
-
Houtenbos v. Fordune Ass'n, Inc.
...v. Board of Mgrs. of Biltmore Towers Condominium Assn., 70 A.D.3d 1004, 1006, 895 N.Y.S.2d 505 ; cf. Cave v. Riverbend Homeowners Assn., Inc., 99 A.D.3d 748, 750, 951 N.Y.S.2d 758 ). Thus, the business judgment rule "permits review of improper decisions, as when the challenger demonstrates ......
-
People v. Sidberry
...412, 360 N.E.2d 1094;People v. Moore, 89 A.D.3d 769, 931 N.Y.S.2d 886;People v. Spurgeon, 63 A.D.3d 863, 864, 880 N.Y.S.2d 707; [951 N.Y.S.2d 758]see also People v. Seabrooks, 289 A.D.2d 515, 735 N.Y.S.2d 590). The defendant's contention, in effect, that the verdict was repugnant because he......