140 W. 28th St. Assoc., LLC v 140 W. Assoc., LLC

Annotate this Case
[*1] 140 W. 28th St. Assoc., LLC v 140 W. Assoc., LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 52360(U) Decided on December 27, 2012 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570708/11.

140 West 28th Street Associates, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, - -

against

140 West Associates, LLC, 140-44 West 28th Street, New York, NY 10001 Respondent-Tenant, Central Parking System of New York, Inc., a/k/a Central Parking System Inc. of New York, Respondent-Undertenant-Appellant, - and- "XYZ Corp., John Doe and Jane Doe" Respondents-Undertenants.

Respondent Central Parking System of New York, Inc., as limited by its briefs, appeals from (1) that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered April 24, 2012, which granted "without opposition papers" petitioner's motion for an award of use and occupancy in a holdover summary proceeding, and (2) a judgment (same court and Judge), entered May 1, 2012, in favor of petitioner and awarding it use and occupancy in the principal sum of $492,113.63.


Per Curiam.

Appeal from order and judgment (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered April 24, 2012 and May 12, 2012, dismissed, without costs.

Inasmuch as respondent-appellant failed to submit opposition papers to the underlying motion, the resulting order and judgment were entered on respondent's default within the meaning of CPLR 5511, and are therefore nonappealable (see Benitez v Olson, 29 AD3d 503 [2006]; Fox v T.B.S.D. Inc., 278 AD2d 612 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 716 [2001]). [*2]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 27, 2012

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.