From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Durst Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 12, 2006
33 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 9226.

October 12, 2006.

Proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered February 8, 2006), challenging respondent's determination, dated July 28, 2005, which upheld an $800 fine against the owner of 829 Third Avenue, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.


The owner of 829 Third Avenue was cited by the Department of Buildings for installing a commercial advertising sign on his premises without a permit, in violation of Building Code (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 27-147. Petitioner, the owner of the building adjacent to 829 Third Avenue, lacks standing to bring this proceeding, inasmuch as it suffered no injury by reason of respondent's action ( see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761; Matter of Lee v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. Dev., 212 AD2d 453, lv dismissed and denied 85 NY2d 1029). The fine was levied on the owner of 829 Third Avenue personally, and not against the property. Even were we to consider the merits and accept petitioner's unsupported claim that it is a co-owner of a shared "party wall" on which the sign was placed, the money judgment was solely enforceable against the owner of 829 Third Avenue, not petitioner.


Summaries of

In re Durst Partners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 12, 2006
33 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

In re Durst Partners

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DURST PARTNERS L.L.C., Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 12, 2006

Citations

33 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 7275
822 N.Y.S.2d 281

Citing Cases

Wachtel v. Park Ave & 84TH St., Inc.

The motion court correctly found that the cause of action for a declaration that the alterations made to the…