Opinion
May 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
When the plaintiff, who knew that the defendant provided services for the benefit of community residents, did not dispute receipt of such services, an implied contract resulted obligating him to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining those services (see, Seaview Assn. v. Williams, 69 N.Y.2d 987, 989; Sea Gate Assn. v. Fleischer, 211 N.Y.S.2d 767). Since the covenants contained in the plaintiff's deeds do not mention charges for water or sewer services, the defendant's charges for such services were not limited by the covenants.
The plaintiff did not dispute receiving such water and sewer services from the defendant. Although the plaintiff did initially raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to certain charges, the defendant withdrew its claim to the disputed charges. Thus, the court properly determined that there were no triable issues of fact, and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its first counterclaim (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.