| Board of Mgrs. of Park Regent Condominium v Park RegentAssoc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02733 [71 AD3d 1070] |
| March 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Board of Managers of Park Regent Condominium,Respondent, v Park Regent Associates, Also Known as Park Regent Unit OwnersAssociation, 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, is 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 March 19, 2009, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which waspursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recoverattorney's fees and expenses.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
This action involves a dispute among unit owners over the control of the board of managersof a mixed-use condominium complex. On June 26, 2006, certain unit owners purported toconduct an annual meeting of the unit owners whereby they purported to elect the individualdefendants as members of a new board of managers. Shortly thereafter, the board of managersthat was in place prior to June 26, 2006 (hereinafter the plaintiff), commenced this action, interalia, for a judgment declaring that the purported meeting was invalid and that the individualdefendants were not elected to the condominium's board of managers on that date. On a priorappeal, this Court concluded, among other things, that the Supreme Court properly granted theplaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its first, second, third, and fourth causes of actiondeclaring, inter alia, that the meeting held on June 26, 2006, was invalid and that the individualdefendants were not duly elected to the condominium's board of managers on that date, and for apermanent injunction preventing the individual defendants from acting as members of the boardof managers (see Board of Mgrs. of Park Regent Condominium v Park Regent Unit OwnersAssoc., 58 AD3d 589, 591 [2009]).
Meanwhile, in January 2009, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) forleave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover its attorney's fees and expensesin prosecuting this lawsuit, alleging that the condominium's bylaws authorize the recovery [*2]of such fees and expenses. Since the proposed amendment is not"palpably insufficient" to state a cause of action nor "patently devoid of merit" (Lucido vMancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]), and inasmuch as the proposed amendment would notcause prejudice or surprise, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in grantingthis branch of the plaintiff's motion (id. at 229). The merits of the cause of action may betested upon a motion for summary judgment or at trial (id.).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhaland Lott, JJ., concur.