From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Park Union Condominium v. 910 Union Street, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 30, 2016
140 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

06-30-2016

The PARK UNION CONDOMINIUM, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. 910 UNION STREET, LLC, Defendant–Respondent.

Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, New York (Ethan A. Kobre of counsel), for appellants. Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Anna A. Higgins of counsel), for respondent.


Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, New York (Ethan A. Kobre of counsel), for appellants.

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Anna A. Higgins of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered July 13, 2015, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement in lieu of complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiffs, a condominium and its board of managers, established that the parties' settlement agreement, covering claims related to defendant's construction of the condominium, constituted “an instrument for the payment of money only” (CPLR 3213 ) and that defendant defaulted by failing to make payment under its terms (see Tongkook Am. v. Bates, 295 A.D.2d 202, 743 N.Y.S.2d 709 [1st Dept.2002] ). In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue as to a defense to the instrument (id. ). The agreement contained an unconditional promise by defendant to pay plaintiffs upon the execution of releases attached to the agreement, and it required no additional performance by plaintiffs as a condition precedent to payment or otherwise made defendant's promise to pay something other than unconditional (see Stevens v. Phlo Corp., 288 A.D.2d 56, 733 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept. 2001] ).

We have considered the defenses raised, including that plaintiffs intentionally concealed that the condominium's individual unit owners had made claims to their insurer related to defendant's construction of the condominium, and find them unavailing as a matter of law.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Park Union Condominium v. 910 Union Street, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 30, 2016
140 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Park Union Condominium v. 910 Union Street, LLC

Case Details

Full title:The PARK UNION CONDOMINIUM, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. 910 UNION…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 30, 2016

Citations

140 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5243
33 N.Y.S.3d 733

Citing Cases

Port Auth. v. Wilenta Feed, Inc.

A settlement agreement may constitute an instrument for the payment of money. See Park Union Condominium v…

Park Union Condominium v. 910 Union Street, LLC

Except for the eighth cause of action, which will be discussed infra, all of the claims in the proposed…