Kunker v. Isle Harbour Estates, 3

• Decision Date: 07 March 2002
• Docket Number: 90541,3
• Parties: FRANK E. KUNKER III et al., Respondents, v ISLE HARBOUR ESTATES INC. et al., Appellants. 90541 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Calendar Date:
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

FRANK E. KUNKER III et al., Respondents v ISLE HARBOUR ESTATES INC. et al., Appellants

90541

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Calendar Date: January 14, 2002

Decided and Entered: March 7, 2002

Pentkowski, Pastore & Freestone, Clifton Park (David H. Pentkowski of counsel), for Isle Harbour Estates Inc., appellant.

Pelagalli, Weiner & Rench L.L.P., Clifton Park (Paul Pelagalli of counsel), for Michael Reynolds and another, appellants.

Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O'Shea, Albany (Frank C. O'Connor of counsel), for respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ.

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sheridan, J.), entered March 2, 2001 in Warren County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiffs.

At issue on appeal is the legal interpretation of a 1982 settlement stipulation, memorialized in a 1983 Supreme Court order, governing access to beach rights and docking facilities in a subdivision located on Lake George in the Town of Bolton, Warren County. Plaintiffs are successors in interest to Huldah Kunker, the original owner of the subdivision. All individual defendants are purchasers of five lots designated as "Section One" on the subdivision, and defendant Isle Harbor Estates Inc. (hereinafter the Homeowners' Association) is a homeowners' association formed by them.(FN1) The Homeowners' Association has legal title to a "common area" in the subdivision which provides access to lake frontage and docking facilities on an adjoining island called Children's Point. The 1982 stipulation and the 1983 order each clearly contemplated the development of five additional lots in "Section Two" of the subdivision, the future owners of which were to have use of "the entire common area" (emphasis supplied). The stipulation also provided as follows:

There will be in the future, a limit on the number of docks that can be placed on Children's Point, which is an island which is part of the common area to be conveyed [to the Homeowners' Association], and that limit will be ten lots - - ten docking spaces. There will be a limit to the number of lots and owners thereof who can use the common areas to be conveyed to the Homeowners' Association, and a limit on the membership in the Homeowners' Association, to ten lots total.

After the Homeowners' Association permanently assigned five of the six existing dock slips on Children's Point to the individual defendants exclusively, plaintiffs commenced this action to enforce their rights as "Section Two" lot owners under the stipulation and order. Following a bench trial, Supreme Court rendered a lengthy, written decision in plaintiffs' favor. Defendants appeal, and we now affirm.

We have little to add to Supreme Court's thorough analysis of the issues. In sum, a stipulation of settlement "made in open court and stenographically recorded is enforceable as a contract and is governed by general contract principles for its interpretation and effect" (Carnicelli v Carnicelli, 205 A.D.2d 726, 727-728; see, Javarone v Pallone, 234 A.D.2d 814, appeals dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 1030, 90 N.Y.2d 884). "The role of the...