Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Co-ops and Condominiums
Limited Warranty Establishes Defense to Consequential Damages Claim Against Sponsor
Board of Managers of the 37, 39 Madison Street Condominium v. 31 Madison Street Development, LLC 2024 WL 4219497 AppDiv, Second Dept. (memorandum opinion)
In an action by a condominium board against the sponsor and its principals seeking damages for defective construction, the sponsor appealed from Supreme Court’s denial of the branch of its motion seek dismissal of claims for consequential damages, unjust enrichment, negligence, and breach of an implied housing merchant warranty. The Appellate Division modified to grant the motion, relying on language in the purchase agreements.
The purchase agreements between sponsor and the condominium unit owners provide that the sponsor’s limited warranty “excludes all consequential, incidental, special damages and indirect damages.” The board of managers of the 12-unit condominium brought an action for defective construction of some of the condominium’s common areas, asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of an implied housing merchant warranty. Sponsor moved to dismiss, and Supreme Court denied the motion.
In modifying, the Appellate Division held that documentary evidence — the limited warranty — conclusively established a defense to the consequential damages claim. The court went on to hold that the purchase agreements and limited warranty also precluded the condominium’s other claims.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.