Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Samuel J. DiBernardo, et al., respondents, v. Lindenwood Village, Sec. A Cooperative Corp., et al., appellants.
Submitted-April 27, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants violated the bylaws of the defendant Lindenwood Village, Sec. A Cooperative Corp., by failing to hold an election of directors in October 2006, the defendants appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated March 2, 2009, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee payable by the defendant Lindenwood Village, Sec. A Cooperative Corp., and (2) from a decision of the same court dated March 9, 2009.
ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated March 2, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court did not err in awarding the plaintiffs an attorney's fee payable by the defendant Lindenwood Village, Sec. A Cooperative Corp. (hereinafter Lindenwood) (see Dinicu v. Groff Studios Corp., 257 A.D.2d 218, 224-225; Measom v Greenwich & Perry St. Hous. Corp., 8 Misc.3d 50, 54, mod on other grounds 42 AD3d 366).
The defendants' contention that the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for the appointment of a temporary receiver to conduct certain of Lindenwood's affairs is not properly before us, as that relief was granted in an order of the Supreme Court, dated June 20, 2008, from which no appeal was taken by the defendants.
The parties' remaining contentions either need not be addressed in light of our determination, or are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, LEVENTHAL and BELEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009-04714 2009-09773 (Index No. 22419 /07)
Decided: May 25, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)