Opinion
April 21, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
It is not disputed that defendants-appellants breached the condominium by-laws by not paying the subject assessments ( see, Frisch v. Bellmarc Mgt., 190 A.D.2d 383, 389). The board's authority to enforce the by-laws is not necessarily compromised by technical defects in its election ( see, Caruso v. Board of Mgrs. of Murray Hill Terrace Condominium, 146 Misc.2d 405, 408), and considering "the particular circumstances of this case" ( Timmerman v. Board of Mgrs. of Anchorage Condominium, 212 A.D.2d 523, 524), including defendants' implicit recognition of the board's general authority to act ( see, Board of Mgrs. of Gen. Apt. Corp. Condominium v. Gans, 72 Misc.2d 726, 728), the motion court properly found that defendants had no defense to plaintiff's cause of action for breach of their by-law obligation to pay assessments. Because the allegations concerning the election of the board do not constitute a defense to defendants' obligation under the by-laws to pay the assessment, the proposed counterclaims clearly lack merit ( see, e.g., Ponte Sons v. American Fibers Intl., 222 A.D.2d 271).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.