Sirianni v. Rafaloff
| Decision Date | 18 June 2001 |
| Citation | 727 N.Y.S.2d 452 |
| Parties | (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) Paul Sirianni, et al., appellants, v. Al Rafaloff, et al., respondents. 2000-09172 : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Tanner Propp, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard Pu of counsel), for appellants.
Stuart M. Herz, Garden City, N.Y., for respondents Al Rafaloff, Annette Rafaloff, Helen Shaine, Carolyn Ryan, Joe Rosen, and 109 Tenants Corp.
Cooper, Paroff & Cooper, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Ira G. Cooper of counsel), for respondent Daniel Moore.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful termination of a proprietary lease, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 15, 2000, as granted the motion of the defendants Al Rafaloff, Annette Rafaloff, Helen Shaine, Carolyn Ryan, Joe Rosen, and 109 Tenants Corp. for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, and upon renewal, granted those branches of their motion which were to dismiss the first through fourth, eighth through eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth causes of action insofar as asserted against them, granted the separate motion of the defendant Daniel Moore for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs operated a business out of their cooperative apartment in Forest Hills since 1980. After receiving complaints from other cooperative shareholders in April and May 1997 that the plaintiffs were operating a business out of their apartment in violation of the proprietary lease, members of the cooperative board and the board's counsel inspected the plaintiffs' apartment in September 1997, and confirmed that the apartment was being used for a business purpose. The cooperative board, through its counsel, issued a notice of termination, dated November 25, 1997, to the plaintiffs advising them that their tenancy would be terminated if they failed to cure their violation of the proprietary lease. The cooperative board then commenced a holdover proceeding in January 1998, which was dismissed that month due to an error in the notice of termination.
The cooperative board served a notice to cure, dated February 11, 1998, indicating that a notice of termination would be served if the plaintiffs failed to cure the violation by March 16, 1998. The cooperative board served a second notice to cure dated May 5, 1998, advising that a notice of termination would be served if the plaintiffs did not cure the violation by June 5, 1998. A notice of termination dated June 15, 1998, was served. The plaintiffs then commenced this action against the cooperative corporation and its board of directors, a tenant, and the spouse of a board member, alleging, inter alia, that the termination of their lease was motivated by racial animus.
After the defendant Annette Rafaloff, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial