| Board of Mgrs. of Park Regent Condominium v Park Regent UnitOwners Assoc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00184 [58 AD3d 589] |
| January 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Board of Managers of Park Regent Condominium,Respondent, v Park Regent Unit Owners Associates, Also Known as Park Regent UnionOwners Association, et al., Defendants, and David Doo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Schechter & Brucker, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Kenneth H. Amorello of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a purported annual meeting of the unitowners of a condominium held on June 26, 2006 was invalid and that the individual defendantswere not elected to the condominium's board of managers on that date, the defendant David Dooappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Taylor, J.), entered September 10, 2007, as denied the defendants' motion pursuant to RealProperty Law § 339-w to inspect the books and records of the condominium.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
This action concerns a dispute among unit owners over the control of the board of managersof a condominium. On June 26, 2006 the individual defendants participated in a meeting wherethey were purportedly elected as members of a new board of managers. The old board ofmanagers commenced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the purported electionwas invalid and that the individual defendants were not elected to the board of managers on thatdate. The defendants did not make any formal discovery demands. Instead, they moved pursuantto Real Property Law § 339-w to inspect the books and records of the condominium.Inasmuch as the defendants did not assert any counterclaim based on Real Property Law §339-w, there is no jurisdictional predicate for granting relief pursuant to that statute in this action(see Seebaugh v Borruso, 220 AD2d 573 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Courtproperly denied the motion.[*2]
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.