NORTHGATE TENANTS CORPORATION v. CHEE TSAI (2011)

Plaintiff Northgate Tenants Corporation is a non-profit corporation responsible for administration, maintenance and operation of a community of residential cooperative units.   Defendant Chee Tsai is a shareholder of the corporation and holds a proprietary lease to a residential unit.   He appeals from the May 7, 2009 order granting summary judgment to plaintiff and entering a judgment against him in the amount of $8,937.28 for unpaid sublease fees and counsel fees.   We affirm.

In 2005, plaintiff adopted a resolution that imposed a monthly sublease fee on all unit owners who rented their units.   Believing the fee unfair and discriminatory, defendant refused to pay the fee.   Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for the unpaid fee.   Following a bench trial in October 2007, the judge found the sublease fee fair and properly adopted and entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $5,418.84.   Defendant did not appeal and satisfied the judgment.

Despite the outcome of the October 2007 trial, defendant refused to pay the sublease fee.   Therefore, in September 2008, plaintiff filed a second complaint against defendant.   Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim in which he asserted that the fee was unfair and discriminatory.   In May 2009, Judge Thomas W. Cavanagh, Jr., granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and entered a judgment against defendant in the amount of $8,937.28.   Judge Cavanagh also ordered defendant to pay the judgment within thirty days.

In his oral opinion, the judge held that the September 2008 complaint presented the same issues between the same parties.   In addition, defendant admitted that he had not paid the sublease fee.   The judge applied the doctrine of res judicata which bars “relitigation of [the same] controversy between the parties.”   He found that the unpaid sublease fee and late fees totaled $2,453.44.   Judge Cavanagh also awarded counsel fees in the amount of $6,483.84.

On appeal, defendant argues that the validity of the sublease fee and his non-payment of the fee were disputed issues of material fact and the attorneys' fee award is excessive.   We disagree.

Judge Cavanagh properly applied the doctrine of res judicata to bar relitigation of issues determined in the prior litigation between these parties.   The fact of non-payment of the sublease fee was not in dispute.   The attorneys' fee award is permitted by the governing by-laws and reasonable in amount.   We, therefore, affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Cavanagh in his May 7, 2009 oral opinion.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM