You are here: / / FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION...

FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant condominium owner was properly ejected from the condominium for failure to pay the common charges:

… [T]he Condominium Act and the applicable bylaws for the subject condominium authorize a lien for unpaid common charges and permit a lien foreclosure action and an action for the appointment of a receiver where appropriate (see Real Property Law §§ 339-z, 339-aa). Further, the order appointing the receiver in this matter authorized the receiver to take certain actions, including ejectment of defendant from the property … . * * *

Ejectment of defendant from the unit was not unconstitutional, since he failed to comply with the court’s prior order directing him to pay the “reasonable fair market rent” of $6,500 per month for his use and occupancy of the unit. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, he was properly required to pay rent on the unit, regardless of the fact that he was the unit’s owner, since both Real Property Law § 339-aa and section 5.9 of the bylaws provide that in a lien foreclosure action, “the Unit Owner shall be required to pay a reasonable rental for the use of said Unit Owner’s Unit.” It is inconsequential and irrelevant to this action that defendant defeated plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the 2011 action. Nor does ejectment under these circumstances deprive defendant of his “real property ownership/occupancy rights without due process of law.” Heywood Condominium v Wozencraft, 2017 NY Slip Op 00257, 1st Dept 1-12-17

 

CONDOMINIUMS (FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM)/COMMON CHARGES (CONDOMINIUMS, FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM)/EJECTION (CONDOMINIUMS, FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM)

You might also like
Mother Could Not Maintain a Cause of Action for Emotional Harm Based Upon the Death of Her Baby—Although the Baby Was “Pre-Viable” and Unconscious, the Baby Was Born Alive and the Mother Suffered No Independent Injury
ALTHOUGH THE TWO INDICTMENTS ALLEGED THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI FOR MEDICAID FRAUD, THE CHARGES INVOLVED DIFFERENT PARTIES AND TIME PERIODS; THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION SEEKING TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTION ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED.
Disagreement About the Meaning of a Term in the Shared-Fee-Agreement Did Not Render the Contract Ambiguous—No Need for Interpretation of the Term by the Court
DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED ADDITIONAL MOLINEUX EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION ELIMINATES DUTY TO WARN BUT NOT DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES... CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION...