Opinion
2018-1362 K C
03-13-2020
Peter POBER, Appellant, v. 750 PARK AVENUE APARTMENTS CORP., Respondent.
Romer Debbas, LLP (Steven Kirkpatrick of counsel), for appellant. Stiefel Cohen & Foote, P.C. (Stefanie Murphy-Boykins and Herbert Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
Romer Debbas, LLP (Steven Kirkpatrick of counsel), for appellant.
Stiefel Cohen & Foote, P.C. (Stefanie Murphy-Boykins and Herbert Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial on plaintiff's cause of action; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered May 23, 2018 is dismissed as academic.
In this small claims action, plaintiff, who purchased the shares pertaining to a cooperative apartment from Chemical Bank, which had obtained the shares in a foreclosure sale, seeks to recover $5,000, representing most of the sublet fees assessed against him by the cooperative corporation's board of directors. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff contended, and contends on appeal, that the proprietary lease does not authorize the board to assess sublet fees against him for several reasons, including, as relevant to this appeal, that he is entitled to the rights of a "designee" of a secured lender. Defendant argued, and the Civil Court concluded in its decision, that plaintiff is actually seeking a declaratory judgment that he is a holder of unsold shares, and that the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (see CCA 1801 ) to adjudicate a declaratory judgment claim (see CPLR 3001 ). Following the trial, a judgment was entered on December 29, 2014 which, among other things, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action. By order dated May 23, 2018, plaintiff's subsequent motion to set aside that portion of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) was denied. Plaintiff appeals from both the judgment and the order.
" ‘[Proprietary] lease interpretation is subject to the same rules of construction as are applicable to other agreements’ " ( Avon Bard Co. v. Aquarian Found. , 260 AD2d 207, 208 [1999], quoting Matter of Cale Dev. Co. v. Conciliation & Appeals Bd. , 94 AD2d 229, 234 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 976 [1984] ). "There is no bar against the interpretation of contracts by courts of limited jurisdiction in actions for money damages" ( Unneland v. Greenwood Condominium , 61 Misc 3d 132[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51447[U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]; see Magnani v. Cuggino , 57 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]; Bay Crest Assn. v. Paar , 47 Misc 3d 9 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]; Globalforce Intl. Inc. v. Urostar Mgt. Inc. , 2002 NY Slip Op 50650[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2002] ). Plaintiff's cause of action, seeking only a money judgment in the sum of $5,000, is based on an alleged breach of contract and does not seek declaratory relief. His claim therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court (see CCA 1801 ). Consequently, so much of the judgment as dismissed plaintiff's cause of action on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim failed to render substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807). In light of the foregoing, the appeal from the order entered May 23, 2018 is dismissed as academic.
Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial on plaintiff's cause of action.
WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.