2018 NY Slip Op 51958

Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 51958
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Source verification: cross_accepted_sealed
Original Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_51958.htm ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,718 chars

Since Spitzer's September 2015 letter refers not only to Local Law 11, but also to various
building codes, strongly suggests, especially since Spitzer improperly interpreted Local Law 11's
applicability, at least one reason why Stable's counsel would have to review Dogwood LLC's
plans, i.e., to ensure that they comply with the relevant statutes, regulations, and codes. See
also [*16]Peterson affidavit in support of motion to dismiss
amended 2017 complaint, exhibit 2, Proprietary lease, ¶ 21 (a) (lessee's alterations must be
in accordance with all of the rules and regulations of the applicable governmental agencies).
Moreover, although the amended 2017 complaint (¶ 60) alleges that the legal fees were to
be limited to negotiating an alteration agreement, the amended complaint's immediately
preceding paragraph asserts that the legal fee sought by the Board were improper, excessive, and
were not limited to the 'review' of Dogwood's plans" (id., ¶ 59 [emphasis
added]), which contradicts the allegation that the legal fees were to be limited to negotiating an
alteration agreement. As for the claim that unspecified legal fees were excessive, such allegation
is wholly conclusory here, where Dogwood LLC and Blumenfeld presumably had the requisite
information from the detailed demands and itemized bills they were to receive.

This Court further notes that paragraph four of the Holdover Case Agreement requires the
parties to that agreement to attempt to resolve, in good faith, any dispute they had in the event
that Stable did not deliver a signed consent to Dogwood LLC's plans, and to resort to litigation
only after the parties could not resolve their dispute via good faith negotiations. The amended