Bishop v 59 W. 12th St. Condominium

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bishop v 59 W. 12th St. Condominium 2007 NY Slip Op 34582(U) May 26, 2007 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101683/04 Judge: Louis B. York Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] \ f1/ SUP~MECO(JRTOF,THESTATEOFNEWYO~-··· NEWYORl{C(jtJNTY PRESENT: PART . 2 · .Hon. LOUIS B. YORK Justice --------------------------------------------------~--------------~~---)( F1·1_.·.·.·-11;· .Jlidex N.o. .. · ·:._ ... . f!1 . ·.·. : . ~016~~!04 RANDA BISHOP, Plaintiff, JUN ·. .. ·~otio~ p~t.e,~95116/07 · -against- . . , 0 6 200~ Motiqn Seq. No.. . 05 . · 59 WEST 12TH.STREET CONDO~ ET ~Yo ...... Motiofi Cal. No. . Defend~ts, "-VLJNTyc~~'b. · . -------:------------------ ---------------------~-"."'---------------~--·--x. . . . ~· Tlie following papers, nwn~,ered 1 to were read on this moti~Ii for RearOOerit I .PAPERS NUMBERED N6tice of Motioril Order to Show Cause~ Affidavits _._'.Exhibits_·._:-~ . I .· Answering A.ffidavits - Exhibits-------...------------- 1 ., .------________ · ·Replying. Affidavits ·( ;! Yes :Cr~ss~Motjon: '( ] No >1" . .This crdss-mo;tlon designated as a reargument pf the rulings in theCofil.pliarJ:~e Order ' • I •' ' ' ' - ' '' ' • ; • : • \ ', ' :. • ~ , - ; • ·, ' dat~d October 18, 2(106 is in. reality a 111otion to .m~difythat_(>rder. as tJ:iere .was n~veran . . . . . . ~ argument but, according to cross-movant, a give ·and take betwe¢n ~e parti~s' 3:ttt)meys and the justice's law-clerk. · Plaintiff has brought this action, inter alia, to· allow her to alter two maids' rooms, turning them into a re;;idential apartment which the defendants·have ·currently refused to do. Plaintiff.alleges that the Board of Directors has, violated its fiduciary obligation to not engage in disparate t:J~eatment of the owners of the condominium's apartments. Plaintiff, 1 I • . alth9ugh having submitted its application for the alterations since 1994, has been blocked by "RECEIV..~:JO. ·· MAY s o·.aou1 ·. the Board of Directors from continufog the alteration~:. . . . ~f:; .:.. . . . . • .. ~··;t;: IAS MOTION•\ SUPPORT OFFICE .· ~ .. -· , .. : , .' .. · [* 2] Bis~op .:v 59 West 12'h St. Index No.: 10~f~83/04 · -2- i I. I· r ! · Piaintiff' s discovery request is t6 seekthe rec.o;r~-.of all requests· made from.two. yeitts, before plaintiff w~ sfopped from doing the alterations.~ l.e., 1992. Defendant stat~s ·fl:\a~ first . .. . the f6rm:ula is ·not sufficiently tailored to ·include .tho~e who .·.wer~· ~ct.ually in" a. ·siJltllar ·: . . . .. ' . ' .. - ' ' ' . ·' ' . '' - ;· -" . .... : . . ' '', '-- situatiop. as plaintiff. Jhose.would .be, .acqordirig. tq plaintif~, all c.oncfo owners: who sought ·· . . r " I [ { ! i to convert th~ir apartpients. fyqm co~ercial. u~e: _(j.e.·, the·. maids' toQms .to ·¢p~ents ... (~esidentiaI-use). Th(~ plai~tiff Gounters that tha(is . afalse cJesririptlon.' S~e staie:~}Jl:anhis ~ , _·; ·. · · · ·._. . DeferiQaQ.t als() .states tl1at th~. period of cQin:pansoit~.Jfiotil.d·,·be three ye~s hefot¢:~Q04~ tl1·e ·· -> :'." · . .. . .. . . .. - ·_ ": . . .. ~ _· , --~ . ' . ' . . -. - •. -. . . ., ' . .. . . ~ .- ' aatethi:s action was commenced; to wit, 2001 .. They ¢JaDn th~t that is-.th~Jifueperjod for the '. • ~. • . sra.tute oflimitatforts - -. • - -· • • • • • ··~. . - -· • '" • • •. • .·~ • 1 ' any rivicJei,iCe Qef9~ that P~dod iS in thiS .action. Consequell.t1).1; ·.... · rrrelev~t. - ,·\ ·... ~ \ ..... · ... :l'he Court moclifies -the· discovery <;>tder to t¢quite $e cofidoimnil1m to.prp'.duce :t1fe:.. "· :.,.: .. .. '. - .. . ' .~ . -_ ' . .. - : . .' alt~r~tion,file.s for all ::esidential apartments fro~J992_to the present For ~e ptttpo~es ~{ • • • j - discovery, the tenants siµtllarly' situated to plaii;ltiff-are:thC>se. owners who·h'ave·'sought permission. from the condominiu111 to alter their. apartment~. The time period .for this inf<;>fmation starts at 1992 because that is a reasonable period w'1en many, ifnot most or all of the· board members who rejected .plaintiff's request were· rejecting or grantjng such I req~es~~· Wh~ther tP.~~ . . . .. . '. . ,• :' . Stawte: _of Limitation~. is .tbfee:.:' yeru;s. ~ ,9~f~ndan.t mai~tains or sb,c .. . . . . . ·. . ' ... - . ' ' ' . ·.. '"'." ' _,. -_ - . . _· . .. ' ' . . ' ·• . _. ~.. . ' .. ;ears as pl3.intiff maintains. is irrelevant for this discovkrY issue~ ·The. Statute of Limitatibhs. . ,- '; ·, -·~' . ' . . '. - ... ~' -. . .· ........ ' .. - . - . . :. ~ ' - .- : - :.. ~ . . '·'..,., ' - "' .·' [* 3] . · Bishop v 59 West 12t11 St. Index No{101~68~l04 · -3- ,'only}iifilts .the period of time that a lawsuit may be brqught after an evertt th~t_.·startsjts . running. It has n~thinj~ to do with this discovery issu~~- ·Whether or not aJ;J.y ~f thesetec-~r~s . . . . will. be. admissible' at trial :will be .qetennined at trial; but they should be revealed. in .. . . . . ., ~ cµ.scovery, wh~re the rules on admis.sibnity are.far·mote flexible than at trial.. · P~fe11dant's 1~otion seeks to ~~ring back the plaintiff for .approxlmately.rwo.mQre_ .-.,. . ·,:·.· : . hours ofexaniip.ation. ··Atthe stitrt of th~.deposition, counsel told defendant that pl$tiff was;··~.-· .. . .. .. . . . - ' . . .• . . ' . ' ·· ;.. mtownforonlym1e day, afet-which sJie·was flyi11g Q~tk,hotn¢ to Las:Vegas~ Coull~~lJQf. ; • .. - - ' • •• - • ' • ' ~ ~ • • • ' • •• - - •• • f • ·, :.. :platntiff suggest~d .tb!it the depositio~- begin ·prompqy: ~f 9;:00 ·~.m. Defendant'{cbU?~~l - . - , • - - - , • • • ' '• ! · ·ili&i$t~~ -on .10:00 a.m~· and arrived at. l.O: 15 :a.m. It is .unQispµt~d:-fuafcounsd sugg~sted. ~ . .. . - ,,. ' . - - . . - ~.. ~ ·. :~_bbtevfatedJurich of a't>0ut30minute$. l)~fendarit's c®Ii$el insisted on afullhour,- ®c;ltQok'. . . - ~ . . - ' . . .. ' - . - . . ; . . . . . .- aJittl~ .-i~I1ger than that. At 5:30 defendant: s counsel_.~topped t\J.e.deposition\vhlQh,.Jte ·state& .. -. ·. . . ' . : ' ,• . ' . . ' ·had· about two 'hours to go. Defendant's· .counsel reflJse.~ to ·dO' SO, insisting ·th~t·plaintiff. ;... . . '··,fieeded to ·fly back to :~ew Yorkfor :~e :relllainingtwo hotir~. . ~: ·. . · : The behavior j r . . cf co~nsel appears niore to inco.nvemence and harass ·plaintiff th® to ... obtain legitimate diSC()V~ry. A slight effort on his part would have concluded the..depOsitic)ri ... I ! The Court does not countenance such incivility and will do 1'0thing to assist the perp~trator I i i r I ."of such..uncivilbehaviorl .The motion. to require plaintiff to appear for the continuance·ofher .· t. r ·. :' '.:deposi,tjon}s de~ed. I ! L. ... I . .. t f . ~ . f I - :i [* 4] : nisbop v 59 West 12th St. Iilde~ No~ 191683/04 -4- . -Finally, defend~it's motj.()n fo compelproduction ()f disc~very material is·d~ajeg..as .. moot. The parties both ~Lgreed that these:documents haq fi~ally, if belatedly~ be~n ·ptbdirc,ed. ·~ This constitutes the Order and Decision of tlie.· Collrt~ . .. ,. ; - ' - - . ' '' . ,' ·. F 1·.i.;E D .••••.•.... , ' !·;. , ,• _ ... ··N~YORK.. .. · :~CPUNTY CLERK'S 'C>FFICF .. . ·. . . . . ."·. .:. I I ! 1· ·• ·. ·. J~~- 0 62~;· . . ..·. ·. ·. '' I' '1 - : ' - ~ .- .' - - ' : ~ I i, Enter:·. . : '. - towr~-· . , •' , ·QIJe~~ 9ne: D FINAL DISPOSITl9N :-~ ~q~~flNAL . Dl~~.osrr~p.~· CJleck if apprppl'iate: [] DO NOT POST 0 REFERENCE · . · . : ·: . - ' - . - ~; .- ' ~ . ~."-.. ~ , i • . • . ;_ ··: < ' , • , • '. .'

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.