CARA GOLDENBERG, plf-ap, v. 425 PARK-SOUTH TOWER CORPORATION, ET AL., def-res, MATTHEW WAGMAN def

4237. CARA GOLDENBERG, plf-ap, v. 425 PARK-SOUTH TOWER CORPORATION, ET AL., def-res, MATTHEW WAGMAN def — [AND A THIRD-PARTY ACTION] Akerman LLP, New York (Joshua D. Bernstein and Jamie Shyman of counsel), for ap — Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, P.L., New York (Bryan J. Mazzola of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered November 1, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on the second cause of action (breach of a proprietary lease) and dismissing the counterclaim for a declaration that plaintiff is solely responsible for all repairs related to non-original plumbing in the subject apartment, and granted defendants 425 Park-South Tower Corporation and Goodman Management Co., Inc.'s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4237. CARA GOLDENBERG, plf-ap, v. 425 PARK-SOUTH TOWER CORPORATION, ET AL., def-res, MATTHEW WAGMAN def — [AND A THIRD-PARTY ACTION] Akerman LLP, New York (Joshua D. Bernstein and Jamie Shyman of counsel), for ap — Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, P.L., New York (Bryan J. Mazzola of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered November 1, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on the second cause of action (breach of a proprietary lease) and dismissing the counterclaim for a declaration that plaintiff is solely responsible for all repairs related to non-original plumbing in the subject apartment, and granted defendants 425 Park-South Tower Corporation and Goodman Management Co., Inc.’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s proprietary lease provides that the lessor “shall not be required to repair or replace, or cause to be repaired or replaced, equipment, fixtures, furniture, furnishings or decorations installed by [plaintiff] or any previous proprietary lessee of the leased space.” In addition, it provides that plaintiff “shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of plumbing, gas and heating fixtures and equipment.” The lease is unambiguous on its face and must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms (see Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569-570 [2002]).Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, there is no ambiguity as to whether “gas, steam, water or other pipes or conduits within the walls, ceilings or floors or heating equipment which is part of the standard building equipment,” for which the lease places the responsibility for maintenance, repair, and replacement on the lessor, includes the fixtures or equipment installed by the previous proprietary lessee.

CARA GOLDENBERG, plf-ap, v. 425 PARK-SOUTH TOWER CORPORATION, ET AL., def-res, MATTHEW WAGMAN def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal