SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts
February 11, 2013
THE SEA GATE ASSOCIATION,
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered June 27, 2011.
Sea Gate Assn. v Zelinskaya
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on February 11, 2013
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ
The judgment, after a non-jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,475.22.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, The Sea Gate Association (Association), owns and maintains the public areas within a gated community in Kings County, and provides services to the residents of that community. It brought this commercial claims action to recover dues and assessments from defendant, who owns a home within the gated area. Following a non-jury trial, the Civil Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,475.22, and this appeal ensued.
Defendant asserted at trial, and continues to argue on appeal, that she is not obligated to pay the dues and assessments charged by plaintiff because the individual from whom she purchased her property did not inform her of such an obligation and because she never entered into an agreement to pay the Association's charges. Defendant's agreement to pay the charges in issue, however, was implied in fact by her purchase of property within the Association's gated community (see Sea Gate Assn. v Fleischer, 211 NYS2d 767, 781 ; see also Seaview Assn. of Fire Is. v Williams, 69 NY2d 987, 989 ; Forest Hills Gardens Corp. v Kamparosyan, 63 AD3d 879 ; Nevel v Shelter Is. Hgts. Prop. Owners Corp., 204 AD2d 700 ). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant's further contention on appeal, that the trial judge, in effect, stifled the presentation of her defense, lacks merit. Consequently, we find that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804-A, 1807-A).
We do not consider defendant's appellate assertions which are dehors the record.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur. Decision Date: February 11, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.