Board of Mgrs. of Greentree at Murray Hill v Golub

[*1] Board of Mgrs. of Greentree at Murray Hill v Golub 2007 NY Slip Op 51910(U) [17 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on October 5, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 5, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., McCOOE, HEITLER, JJ
570654/06.

Board of Managers of Greentree at Murray Hill, Plaintiff-Respondent, Calendar No. 07-059-060

against

Benjamin Golub, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered July 21, 2006, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the sum of $21,746.84, and from an order (same court and Judge), entered September 14, 2006, after inquest, which awarded plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $9,672.50.

Per Curiam.

Order (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered July 21, 2006, affirmed, with $10 costs. Appeal from order (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered September 14, 2006, dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Defendant, the owner of a condominium unit, was not entitled to withhold payment of common charges owing to the Board of Managers because of a water leak within his unit, nor was he entitled to a stay of this action for unpaid common charges pending resolution of a related action for property damages (see Board of Managers of the 200 West 109 Condominium v Baker, 244 AD2d 229 [1997]; Rivermist Association, Inc. v Davis, 251 AD2d 1039 [1998]).

No appeal lies from the order awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees upon defendant's failure to appear at inquest (see CPLR 5511; Bank of Montreal v Predovan, 71 NY2d 844 [1998]; see also Dobbins v Vartabedian, 23 AD3d 431 [2005]). Defendant's remedy was to move to vacate the default in Civil Court and, if unsuccessful, to appeal the denial of that motion (see Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent, Sheinfeld & Sorkin v Mazzella, 262 AD2d 15 [1999]). In view of our dismissal of the appeal from this order, we have no occasion to reach defendant's jurisdictional argument.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 5, 2007