Bernard B. Gasee

The applicant condominium corporation sought approval of an administrator's reports, extension of his term, recovery of additional expenses incurred due to respondents' non-compliance with a prior order, and costs for two motions.

The court approved the administrator's extension and reports, ordered the non-compliant respondents to bear the additional expenses of $62,543.55, and awarded costs to the applicant on a full indemnity basis for the urgent motion ($25,809.20) and partial indemnity for the June motion ($2,750.00), all payable pro-rata by the non-compliant unit owners.

The court also allowed the applicant to use the lien mechanism under the Condominium Act for recovery.

A condominium corporation brought an urgent motion to enforce compliance with a prior consent order regarding the restoration of common element attic spaces.

The respondents, unit owners, resisted the removal of attic hatch ladders, arguing they were outside the scope of the order.

The court clarified that the removal of these ladders was essential for structural integrity and municipal compliance, as they compromised the roof trusses.

The court mandated compliance with the original order, confirming the scope included ladder removal, and granted the corporation the right to use security and locksmiths for access.

While declining to make a contempt finding immediately, the court reserved the right to reconsider it.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant owner for unpaid common element maintenance fees, interest, and additional claimed expenses.

The parties settled the principal amount of the arrears.

The court enforced the condominium by-law's contractual interest rate of 30% above prime, finding no reason to grant relief from it.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for additional collection expenses, finding they were not authorized by the by-laws and were subsumed by the high interest rate.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of $30,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused and taken under advisement during examinations for discovery of two individual defendants, Alan G. Fickett and Aaron T. Morrison, and their associated corporate entities, Ecolight LED Systems, LLC and Ecolight International, LLC.

The underlying action alleged misrepresentation, unpaid loans, and diversion of inventory by a co-defendant through a scheme involving the Ecolight companies.

The court assessed the relevance of each refused question based on the pleadings and the scope of discovery, compelling answers for some questions related to inventory suppliers, financing, and bank statements, while refusing others concerning corporate records and marketing plans.

This case involved a dispute over a commercial condominium Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Purchaser failed to close on the fixed date, requesting extensions which the Vendor refused.

The Purchaser sued for specific performance and relief from forfeiture, moving for a certificate of pending litigation.

The Vendor sued for a declaration that the agreement was terminated and forfeiture of deposits, moving for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the Purchaser's action and motion, granting the Vendor's summary judgment.

It held that the duty of good faith in a discreet real estate transaction does not override strict contractual terms regarding closing dates.

The court ordered forfeiture of the $40,000 in deposits but ordered the return of $31,999.50 paid on account of interim closing funds, distinguishing between true deposits and payments on account.

Following judgment in a civil action, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff argued entitlement to enhanced costs on the basis that he had beaten his offer to settle, while the defendant disputed that claim and argued the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The court accepted that the plaintiff had not beaten the offer to settle and found that the proceeding should properly have been brought in Small Claims Court, justifying the exercise of discretion under Rule 57.05 to decline awarding costs to the plaintiff.

However, the court also declined to award costs to the defendant due to misconduct by its agent.

As a result, no costs were awarded to either party.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of funds withdrawn from his bank account for an alleged car loan arranged through a dealership acting as the bank’s agent.

The bank asserted that a valid loan agreement existed and relied on signed loan documentation and the plaintiff’s payment history.

The court held that the bank failed to establish that acceptance of the loan application was communicated to the borrower, a required element for contract formation.

Because the bank did not prove that a binding loan agreement existed, it had no legal right to withdraw the funds.

Summary judgment was granted requiring repayment of the withdrawn amount with interest, while additional damage claims were dismissed for lack of evidence.

A real estate brokerage sought commission after the seller refused to complete a residential sale despite entering an agreement of purchase and sale.

The seller argued the brokerage was not entitled to commission because its agent failed to disclose an existing buyer agency relationship with the purchasers before presenting the offer, contrary to the listing agreement and fiduciary duties.

The court held that the agent failed to make the required written disclosure of the dual agency relationship prior to presenting the offer.

This non‑disclosure constituted a material breach of the listing agreement and the agent’s fiduciary obligations.

As a result, the brokerage was disentitled from recovering commission under the agreement.