Majority
p. 140Board of Managers of Madison Medical Building Condominium, Respondent, v Leovina L. Rama et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. [671 NYS2d 246]
—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered May 18, 1995 and November 1, 1995, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and struck defendants-appellants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaim, and denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
It is not disputed that defendants-appellants breached the condominium by-laws by not paying the subject assessments (see, Frisch v Bellmarc Mgt., 190 AD2d 383 , 389). The board’s authority to enforce the by-laws is not necessarily compromised by technical defects in its election (see, Caruso v Board of Mgrs.
p. 141
of Murray Hill Terrace Condominium, 146 Misc 2d 405 , 408), and considering “the particular circumstances of this case” (Timmerman v Board of Mgrs. of Anchorage Condominium, 212 AD2d 523 , 524), including defendants’ implicit recognition of the board’s general authority to act (see, Board of Mgrs. of Gen. Apt. Corp. Condominium v Gans, 72 Misc 2d 726 , 728), the motion court properly found that defendants had no defense to plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of their by-law obligation to pay assessments. Because the allegations concerning the election of the board do not constitute a defense to defendants’ obligation under the by-laws to pay the assessment, the proposed counterclaims clearly lack merit (see, e.g., Ponte & Sons v American Fibers Intl., 222 AD2d 271 ). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
Cases cited
- Frisch v. Bellmarc Management, Inc. 190 AD2d 383 at 389 p. 140
- Caruso v. Board of Managers of Murray Hill Terrace Condominium 146 Misc 2d 405 at 408 p. 141
- Timmerman v. Board of Managers of the Anchorage Condominium 212 AD2d 523 at 524 p. 141
- Board of Managers of General Apartment Corp. Condominium v. Gans 72 Misc 2d 726 at 728 p. 141