Vito Catania v Tower Club Condominium
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 25, 2018
Justice Court of the Village of Tuckahoe, Westchester County
Vito Catania, Trustee of the Charles Catania Testamentary Trust, Plaintiff,
against
The Tower Club Condominium, Defendant.
XXXXX
Vito Catania, Trustee pro se,
Geist Schwarz & Jellinek, PLLC
The Tower Club Condominium, for Defendant
David Otis Fuller Jr., J.
In these two consolidated small claims cases, plaintiff sought relief from payment of a condominium assessment of $2,424.12 as the owner of condominium unit 919 and payment to him for rental fees from and return of a parking space which he claimed were due.
Claim 1
The plaintiff purchased unit 919 of defendant The Tower Club at a foreclosure sale on March 16, 2018. An assessment for the unit had been imposed by The Tower Club on March 1, 2017. The Tower Club permitted the former owner to pay the assessment all at once or in installments over a 24- month period. The prior owner was billed $10,908.51 by The Tower Club for the assessment as shown by a letter dated January 8, 2018, but paid nothing. The Tower Club billed the plaintiff in monthly installments after its purchase based on what it considered was plaintiff's share.
At the trial, plaintiff testified that he had paid none of the installments, but informed the court and defense counsel in his later written submission that the trust had sent $100 to The [*2]Tower Club to be applied toward the bill. The purpose of the payment was to meet defendant's argument that the court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff could not show money damages, but was simply making a request for a declaratory judgment that no money was due. See Esposito v. Barr, Esposito v. Dennehy, Esposito v. Woodbrooke Estates, 48 Misc 3d 1225(A). At a subsequent appearance, plaintiff was permitted, over objection, to have the $100 he had sent defendant be applied toward the bill to put the case in a posture where this court could award money damage in that amount if warranted. His claim of $2,424.12 was thus reduced to $100.
The assessment was imposed before the plaintiff purchased the condominium. It appears from the record that the assessment was an obligation of the prior owner who had the choice of paying the entire sum all at once or in installments over 24 months. It also appears that any assessment was extinguished by the foreclosure sale and, thus, plaintiff was not responsible for it. See Bankers Trust Company v. Board of Managers of The Park 900 Condominium, 81 NY2d 1033, 1035-6.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is awarded $100.00, the amount he paid toward the bill.
Claim 2
After the plaintiff purchased the unit, he was given a parking space different from the one attached to the unit before the foreclosure. The plaintiff is suing to obtain rental compensation for and return of the prior space. A determination as to who is entitled to a particular parking spot is akin to a declaratory judgment, something outside the jurisdiction of a small claims court. See Esposito v. Barr, etc., supra.
Accordingly, this claim of the plaintiff is dismissed without prejudice.
Dated: October 25, 2018
________________________________________
David Otis. Fuller, Jr.
Village Justice
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.
