Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Greenberg v. Board of Managers

Greenberg v. Bd. of Managers, 294 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2002)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
2002-05-20
Topic
litigation

—In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated September 1, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it, among other things, enjoining it from prohibiting the plaintiffs from erecting a Succah on the balcony of their condominium unit. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction, since the condominium’s governing board acted outside the scope of its authority in prohibiting them from erecting a Succah on the balcony of their condominium unit (see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530). *468The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Greenberg v. Board of Managers. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions

—In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated September 1, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it, among other things, enjoining it from prohibiting the plaintiffs from erecting a Succah on the balcony of their condominium unit.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction, since the condominium’s governing board acted outside the scope of its authority in prohibiting them from erecting a Succah on the balcony of their condominium unit (see Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. Corp., 75 NY2d 530).

*468 The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, O’Brien and Schmidt, JJ., concur.