Opinion
No. 808 Index No. 655265/21 Case No. 2023-03001
10-17-2023
Klari Neuwelt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 33072 Owners Corp., Defendant-Respondent.
Wasserman Grubin & Rogers, LLP, New York (Michael T. Rogers of counsel), for appellant. Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, PL, New York (Frederick C. Sung of counsel), for respondent.
Wasserman Grubin & Rogers, LLP, New York (Michael T. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, PL, New York (Frederick C. Sung of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Webber, J.P., Oing, Gesmer, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered May 9, 2023, which, upon deeming defendant's motion to dismiss as one that sought to dismiss all claims related to defendant's house rules, granted the motion and dismissed the claims arising out of defendant's house rule 4, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Supreme Court correctly found that plaintiff had not stated a cause of action either for injunctive or monetary relief because no violation of a house rule had occurred. House rule 4, the relevant rule, was unambiguous, and the parties' intentions can be determined from the four corners of the document (see West, Weir & Bartel, Inc. v Mary Carter Paint Co., 25 N.Y.2d 535, 540 [1969]; Ruttenberg v Davidge Data Sys. Corp., 215 A.D.2d 191, 192-193 [1st Dept 1995]). Specifically, house rule 4 provides, in relevant part, that in the event shareholders disagree as to the decorations and furnishings of their common hallways, that defendant's board of directors "shall decide." Under the plain reading of this house rule, Supreme Court properly dismissed so much of plaintiff's complaint seeking to enjoin defendant from, among other things, making changes to the existing decorative scheme in the common hallway.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.