Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2015 10:31 AM INDEX NO. 158134/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
DANIEL COLLINS, THOMAS J. CRAREN, CI-IRISTIN
KOHLS, JOSEPH KOHLS, GREG MERCHANT, Index No: 158134/2015
MATTHEW MCGOWAN, ADAM LEO STONE, and
JACQUELINE ROSANNA STONE,
AFFIRMATION IN
Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS'
v. SUMMARY .JUDGMENT
PARK RIGHT CORPORATION and 415 PR LLC,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PERRY BURKETI, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the
State of New York, affirms the following under all the penalties of perjury:
1. That I am the attorney defending the defendant, Park Right Corporation
(hereinafter "Park Right") and that I am fully familiar with facts involved in the above entitled
action.
2. That I make this affirmation in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for sutnmary
judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 against both defendants herein.
3. That this action for declaratory judgment was commenced by the plaintiffs' on
August 6, 2015. A copy of the complaint is attached to the supporting Affirmation of plaintiffs'
counsel, I(evin Fritz as Exhibit A.
4. An Answer and Affirmative Defenses was filed by defendant Park Right on
August 31, 2015. A copy of said Answer and Affirmative Defenses _is annexed to the Supporting
Affirn1ation of Kevin Fritz as Exhibit B.
5. The attention of this Court is directed to the aforesaid Answer and Affirmative
Defenses and the Court is asked to closely review said Answer and Affirmative Defenses since it
outlines n1ost all of the material issues involved in the dispute between the parties herein.
6. Among the primary documents relied on by the plaintiffs in the relief they are
seeking are "parking space riders" and "parking space license agreements" entered into by and
between the plaintiffs and 415 Greenwich Street Owner LLC, the sponsor of Tribeca Summit
Condominium and/or the board of managers of the Tribeca Su1nmit Condominiu1n. It is
important to note that neither the sponsor nor the board of managers of Tribeca Summit
Condominium are named as defendants in the above entitled action. It is respectfully submitted
that failure to name these parties as defendants in this action is a fatal defect in the action
ultimately requiring the dismissal of this action, since they are "indispensible parties." It 1nust
also be emphasized that neither of the named defendants Park Right or 415 PR LLC were
signatories or parties to the aforesaid parking space riders and parking space license agree1nents.
7. Other docu1nents primarily relied upon by the plaintiffs in this action are the By-
laws of the Tribeca Summit Condominium. "Condominium unit owners" such as co-defendant
415 PR LLC are subject to the provisions of said By-laws among a number of the By-law
provisions cited by plaintiffs are the responsibility of "condominium unit owners to pay certain
items of maintenance expenses for the Tribeca Summit Condominium. These expenses are the
expenses required to maintain and operate the building which houses the Tribeca Summit
Condo1ninium units." It must be emphasized that the plaintiffs have been unable to produce any
By-law provision which specifically states that condominium unit owners shall be responsible
for the expenses of operating a garage at 415 Greenwich Street, New York, New York. This is
2
because no such provision providing specifically for the payment of garage expenses exists in the
By-laws.
8. The reason why there is no specific By-law provision referring to the expenses for
operating a garage in the building is because the board of managers and the Tribeca Summit
Condominium are not involved in the operation of the garage at 415 Greenwich Street and have
absolutely no interest in collecting any pro rata maintenance charges for operating the garage.
In fact, since they do not operate the garage they expend· no monies for garage expenses such as
parking garage attendants, security cameras, insurance, etc.
9. Defendant, Park Right, is not and never was a "condominiutn unit owner" and
therefore has no direct responsibility for paying any of the numerous maintenance charges due to
be paid to the condominium by the condominium unit owners. In this case, those charges are
paid by co-defendant 415 PR LLC which owns the commercial condominium unit in which the
garage operation of Park Right is housed. Park Right leases the lower levels of the building at
the Tribeca Condominium from co-defendant 415 PR LLC and in turn pays monthly rental to
415 PR LLC. Park Right also incurs the expenses of operating the garage providing parking
attendants, security cameras and providing valet parking service where requested.
10. In items E and F of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, plaintiffs' counsel
incorrectly paraphrases and mischaracterizes provisions contained in the Purchase and Sale
Agreetnent of the garage condominium unit from the sponsor to defendant 415 PR LLC at
Section 4.3.1 of that Agreement and as to a separate provision contained in the Lease Agreement
between 415 PR LLC to Park Right Corp., specifically in a two-page Lease Modification
Agreement.
11. The wording of the sentence in the Purchase and Sale Agreement is as follows:
3
" As such , sell e r m akes no represe nta tion that b uyer w ill be able to collect the
foregoing fees from purchasers of the parking spaces ."
In the Lease Modification Agreement the sentence interpreted is as fo ll ows:
"Tenant acknowledges that no representation has been m ade to T enant that
Tenant shall be able to collect such fees, c ha rges and expenses from pu rc hasers of
parking spaces."
In the case o f both these prov isio ns, p lainti ffs' counse l states that these provis ions m ean th at
" Park R ig ht woul d no t be able to collect s uc h costs and expenses from licensees." In the case of
the garage condominium owner tha t the bu yer wou ld not be able to co ll ect s uc h costs and
expenses fro m a ny licensees . Clearly, this is not what was mea nt. In both instances, these
prov is ions were put in as di sclaimers in order to p rotect the seller, in the case of the Purc hase a nd
Sale Agreem e nt o f the garage condominium and the garage co ndominium owner, in the case of
the Lease Modification Agreement with the Tena nt Park Right. C lea rl y,
this is a no rmal type of
disclaime r w hereb y both the selle r and the lessor w is h to protect the mselves from any claims in
the event that the re were any prob lems in the collection of fees from the parking lice nse ho lde rs.
l believe that the pape rs s ubmitted in o pposition to the motion by co-defe ndant 415 PR LLC also
clearly d ispute the meaning attributed by plaintiffs' counsel to the disclaime r phrase enclosed in
the Lease Agreeme nt.
12. It is most respectfully submitted th atne ither the sponsor selling the garage
condomin ium uni t nor the garage condom inium unit ow ner in leas ing the premises to Park Rig ht
would have ta ke n the time a nd had their lawyers insert such a disclaime r p rov is ion if there were
not some prov is ion or basis whe reby the owne rs of parking lice nses were requi red to pa y fo r
their pro rata sha re of the garage units operating expenses as such provisions were clearly set
forth in the Condominium Offering Statement, firstl y unde r the heading "Special Risks To Be
Considered By Purchase rs" and the n aga in in the sectio n of Offering State ment under the
4
heading "Commercial Units" (see Exhibits A-1 and A-2 annexed to the Memorandum of Law in
Opposition To The Motion submitted by Park Right Corp.).
13. Park Right has separate claims against each of the plaintiffs in the above entitled
action, none of which exceeds $14,250.00. What plaintiffs' counsel has done in order to meet
the $25,000.00 jurisdictional limit of this Court is to bundle together the individual claims which
Park Right seeks to collect from the various plaintiffs. It is respectfully submitted that there is a
question in the mind of this Affirmant whether such a bundling of amounts is permitted for the
purpose of arriving at the minimal jurisdictional amount required for amount to be brought
before this Court.
14. In itetn D under the Statement of Facts at page 5 of the plaintiffs' Memorandum
of Law, the following statement is made:
"During the several years that the Sponsor owned the Garage and in accordance
with the By-laws and other contracts mentioned herein, the Sponsor did not
charge, and did not seek to charge, plaintiffs for costs and expenses associated
with the garage (Collin Aff. 1f 10; Craren Aff. 1f 10; Kohls Aff. 1f 10; Merchant
Aff. 1f 7; Stone Aff. 1f 9)."
The reason for the plaintiffs having escaped being billed for garage operating expenses are to a
large extent explained by the accompanying Affirmation and Opposition of Joel Silver the
managing tnetnber of the sponsor, 415 Greenwich Street Owner LLC, and also the Vice
President of the Board of Manager of the Tribeca Summit Condominium until sometime in 2010.
The above statement indicating that the plaintiffs were not charged for several years in
accordance with the By-laws, is completely false and a contrived statement. There is no By-law
and never was any By-law which referred to the operating expenses of a garage at 415
Greenwich Street. Furthermore, there is no reason for any such By-law for the Tribeca Summit
5
Condominium since the Tribeca Summit Condominium was never involved in operating any
garage at the building.
15. In fact, neither the original sponsor nor the board of managers of the Tribeca
Summit Condominium had any familiarity with respect to operating a garage nor did they have
any inclination to do so. As to the sponsor, it was more concerned with the sale of condominium
units, including the commercial condominium unit comprising the garage premises than with
getting involved with starting a garage operation in the building. It is interesting to note that in
October 2013 the sponsor sold the Comtnercial Condominium Unit comprising the garage
premises to defendant 415 PR LLC and immediately in the next month, November 2013, 415 PR
LLC turned around and leased it to an experienced garage operator Park Right Corp. Park Right
Corp. commenced operating a garage on the first floor and lower basement levels of the building
in December 2013, prior to the commencement of garage operations by Park Right Corp. there
was no formal garage operated in the building and the plaintiffs drove their cars into the garage
themselves and picked up and removed their cars themselves. There were, in fact, no
expenditures at any time by either the sponsor or the board of managers of the Tribeca Sum1nit
Condominium or garage operating expenses, since they did not operate a garage during those
early years. When Park Right con1menced operations they installed proper garage attendants to
park vehicles in specific spots and to bring the vehicles from the spots to the front when the
owners of the vehicles arrived to pick up the vehicles, thus, they had salaries to pay, they had to
pay rent to the owner of the commercial condominiu1n comprising the garage premises, they
installed security catneras and they had insurance and real estate tax expenses. Thus, there were
no garage operating expenditures to pro rate among the purchasers of the parking spaces prior to
the con1mence1nent of the garage operations by defendant Park Right.
6
THE ARGUMENT SET FORTH IN ITEM H OF PLAINTIFFS'
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS TO GARAGE EXPENSES
CHARGED TO PLAINTIFFS IS INCORRECT. THE
STATEMENT THAT THE AMOUN'f SOUGHT FROM THE
PLAINTIFFS IS "ABSURD" IS INVALID AND OUTDATED
16. The following statements are contained in Item H of the plaintiffs' Memorandum
of Law:
"Defendants' position is not only conclusively refuted by the By-laws, Parking
Space Riders and Parking Space Licenses, but the position is also absurd." ...
"Parking Rights invoices to plaintiffs seeking monthly service charge of $600.
(Collin Aff. Exh. D; Craren Aff. 1l D; Kohls Aff. 1l D; Merchant Aff. Exh. C; McGowan Aff. ~ C;
Stone Aff. 1ID). That monthly amount is the same that someone off of the street (i.e., without a
license to park in the Garage) pays to park in the Garage."
17. A careful scanning of the copies of monthly invoices attached as exhibits to each
of the plaintiffs' supporting affidavits shows that the 1nonthly amounts charged to plaintiffs
varied starting from December 2013, clearly contradicting the above statement contained as an
argUinent in plaintiffs' Memorandmn of Law. More specific information on this point is detailed
in paragraph 6 of the supporting affidavit of Park Right's President, Mr. Moshe Izadi.
18. Furthermore, it is a commonly known fact that off-street parking spaces in
Manhattan are becoming more and more expensive and there is a diminishing supply of off-street
parking spaces available for sale license. A brief search of the internet, in fact, yielded so1ne
interesting articles concerning the prices being paid for parking spaces in Manhattan and one also
concerning the Park Slope area in Brooklyn, the articles concerned are as follows:
(1) A new eleven story 31-unit condo at 15 Renwick Street where there are
parking spots which will be priced from $500,000 to $1,000,000 each;
(2) the san1e internet article also discusses a new building being built at a
neighboring property at 443 Greenwich Street, a 53-unit building where the
price for a parking spot available will be $850,000 for a single spot and $1.5
million for double spot;
7
(3) the third article concerns sales of parking spots in a Park Slope garage
condominium building where spots are currently being sold for $80,000 each
and in addition, the purchasers will pay a monthly maintenance fee of $240.00
per month; and
(4) a copy of an article appearing on the New York Times website dated October
24, 2014 with the subheading, "In New York's Luxury Apartments, Amenities
Are Costly Add-Ons." I have underlined sections of the article of particular
interest. Careful notes should be taken of the item contained on page 4 of the
Article concerning the Sale of Licenses for storage cages purchased at a 145-
unit building at 56 Leonard Street in Manhattan.
Copies of the internet articles in question are annexed hereto as Exhibits A. Please note, I have
underlined the pertinent provisions in the aforesaid internet articles as far as the first two
buildings in Manhattan are concerned, while it is true that the residential condo units in the
building are extremely expensive, it should be pointed out that the residential condominium units
purchased by the plaintiffs in above entitled action were each purchased for prices in excess of
$1,000,000 million and, upon information and belief, in some cases for several million dollars.
19. An analogous argument could be made along the lines contained in Item H of the
Argument section of the plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law that if each of the plaintiffs paid in
excess of $1,000,000 for residential unit their additional monthly maintenance payments for the
use and occupancy of such residential units in excess of $1,000 each month might also be
concluded as being absurd. In addition, it is respectfully submitted that in many Manhattan
residential condominium buildings these days it is quite common for parking spaces and storage
bins to be sold at expensive prices and despite the payment of such prices there is also added on
to the prices a monthly maintenance charge or fee. This is true both in the sale of parking spots
and or licensing of storage bins. In most cases, high-rise luxury buildings the nutnber of parking
spots available for sale and the number of storage bins available are far less than the total number
8
of residential condominium units contained in the building as a whole. This is one of the reasons
for the expensive amounts charged in such buildings for parking spots and storage bins.
20. It is respectfully requested, that on the basis of the facts contained in this
Affirmation along with the Exhibits annexed thereto, on the affidavits in opposition submitted by
co-defendant 415 PR LLC and on the Affidavits of Joel Silver and Moshe Izadi, President of
defendant Park Right and the Exhibits annexed thereto and upon the Memorandum of Law In
Opposition to the Motion of defendant Park Right, along with the Exhibits annexed to said
Memorandum that plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be denied in all respects.
Dated: December 21, 2015
9
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2015 10:31 AM INDEX NO. 158134/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------)( DANIEL COLLINS, THOMAS J. CRAREN, CI-IRISTIN KOHLS, JOSEPH KOHLS, GREG MERCHANT, Index No: 158134/2015 MATTHEW MCGOWAN, ADAM LEO STONE, and JACQUELINE ROSANNA STONE, AFFIRMATION IN Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' v. SUMMARY .JUDGMENT PARK RIGHT CORPORATION and 415 PR LLC, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------)( PERRY BURKETI, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under all the penalties of perjury: 1. That I am the attorney defending the defendant, Park Right Corporation (hereinafter "Park Right") and that I am fully familiar with facts involved in the above entitled action. 2. That I make this affirmation in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for sutnmary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 against both defendants herein. 3. That this action for declaratory judgment was commenced by the plaintiffs' on August 6, 2015. A copy of the complaint is attached to the supporting Affirmation of plaintiffs' counsel, I(evin Fritz as Exhibit A. 4. An Answer and Affirmative Defenses was filed by defendant Park Right on August 31, 2015. A copy of said Answer and Affirmative Defenses _is annexed to the Supporting Affirn1ation of Kevin Fritz as Exhibit B. 5. The attention of this Court is directed to the aforesaid Answer and Affirmative Defenses and the Court is asked to closely review said Answer and Affirmative Defenses since it outlines n1ost all of the material issues involved in the dispute between the parties herein. 6. Among the primary documents relied on by the plaintiffs in the relief they are seeking are "parking space riders" and "parking space license agreements" entered into by and between the plaintiffs and 415 Greenwich Street Owner LLC, the sponsor of Tribeca Summit Condominium and/or the board of managers of the Tribeca Su1nmit Condominiu1n. It is important to note that neither the sponsor nor the board of managers of Tribeca Summit Condominium are named as defendants in the above entitled action. It is respectfully submitted that failure to name these parties as defendants in this action is a fatal defect in the action ultimately requiring the dismissal of this action, since they are "indispensible parties." It 1nust also be emphasized that neither of the named defendants Park Right or 415 PR LLC were signatories or parties to the aforesaid parking space riders and parking space license agree1nents. 7. Other docu1nents primarily relied upon by the plaintiffs in this action are the By- laws of the Tribeca Summit Condominium. "Condominium unit owners" such as co-defendant 415 PR LLC are subject to the provisions of said By-laws among a number of the By-law provisions cited by plaintiffs are the responsibility of "condominium unit owners to pay certain items of maintenance expenses for the Tribeca Summit Condominium. These expenses are the expenses required to maintain and operate the building which houses the Tribeca Summit Condo1ninium units." It must be emphasized that the plaintiffs have been unable to produce any By-law provision which specifically states that condominium unit owners shall be responsible for the expenses of operating a garage at 415 Greenwich Street, New York, New York. This is 2 because no such provision providing specifically for the payment of garage expenses exists in the By-laws. 8. The reason why there is no specific By-law provision referring to the expenses for operating a garage in the building is because the board of managers and the Tribeca Summit Condominium are not involved in the operation of the garage at 415 Greenwich Street and have absolutely no interest in collecting any pro rata maintenance charges for operating the garage. In fact, since they do not operate the garage they expend· no monies for garage expenses such as parking garage attendants, security cameras, insurance, etc. 9. Defendant, Park Right, is not and never was a "condominiutn unit owner" and therefore has no direct responsibility for paying any of the numerous maintenance charges due to be paid to the condominium by the condominium unit owners. In this case, those charges are paid by co-defendant 415 PR LLC which owns the commercial condominium unit in which the garage operation of Park Right is housed. Park Right leases the lower levels of the building at the Tribeca Condominium from co-defendant 415 PR LLC and in turn pays monthly rental to 415 PR LLC. Park Right also incurs the expenses of operating the garage providing parking attendants, security cameras and providing valet parking service where requested. 10. In items E and F of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, plaintiffs' counsel incorrectly paraphrases and mischaracterizes provisions contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreetnent of the garage condominium unit from the sponsor to defendant 415 PR LLC at Section 4.3.1 of that Agreement and as to a separate provision contained in the Lease Agreement between 415 PR LLC to Park Right Corp., specifically in a two-page Lease Modification Agreement. 11. The wording of the sentence in the Purchase and Sale Agreement is as follows: 3 " As such , sell e r m akes no represe nta tion that b uyer w ill be able to collect the foregoing fees from purchasers of the parking spaces ." In the Lease Modification Agreement the sentence interpreted is as fo ll ows: "Tenant acknowledges that no representation has been m ade to T enant that Tenant shall be able to collect such fees, c ha rges and expenses from pu rc hasers of parking spaces." In the case o f both these prov isio ns, p lainti ffs' counse l states that these provis ions m ean th at " Park R ig ht woul d no t be able to collect s uc h costs and expenses from licensees." In the case of the garage condominium owner tha t the bu yer wou ld not be able to co ll ect s uc h costs and expenses fro m a ny licensees . Clearly, this is not what was mea nt. In both instances, these prov is ions were put in as di sclaimers in order to p rotect the seller, in the case of the Purc hase a nd Sale Agreem e nt o f the garage condominium and the garage co ndominium owner, in the case of the Lease Modification Agreement with the Tena nt Park Right. C lea rl y, this is a no rmal type of disclaime r w hereb y both the selle r and the lessor w is h to protect the mselves from any claims in the event that the re were any prob lems in the collection of fees from the parking lice nse ho lde rs. l believe that the pape rs s ubmitted in o pposition to the motion by co-defe ndant 415 PR LLC also clearly d ispute the meaning attributed by plaintiffs' counsel to the disclaime r phrase enclosed in the Lease Agreeme nt. 12. It is most respectfully submitted th atne ither the sponsor selling the garage condomin ium uni t nor the garage condom inium unit ow ner in leas ing the premises to Park Rig ht would have ta ke n the time a nd had their lawyers insert such a disclaime r p rov is ion if there were not some prov is ion or basis whe reby the owne rs of parking lice nses were requi red to pa y fo r their pro rata sha re of the garage units operating expenses as such provisions were clearly set forth in the Condominium Offering Statement, firstl y unde r the heading "Special Risks To Be Considered By Purchase rs" and the n aga in in the sectio n of Offering State ment under the 4 heading "Commercial Units" (see Exhibits A-1 and A-2 annexed to the Memorandum of Law in Opposition To The Motion submitted by Park Right Corp.). 13. Park Right has separate claims against each of the plaintiffs in the above entitled action, none of which exceeds $14,250.00. What plaintiffs' counsel has done in order to meet the $25,000.00 jurisdictional limit of this Court is to bundle together the individual claims which Park Right seeks to collect from the various plaintiffs. It is respectfully submitted that there is a question in the mind of this Affirmant whether such a bundling of amounts is permitted for the purpose of arriving at the minimal jurisdictional amount required for amount to be brought before this Court. 14. In itetn D under the Statement of Facts at page 5 of the plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, the following statement is made: "During the several years that the Sponsor owned the Garage and in accordance with the By-laws and other contracts mentioned herein, the Sponsor did not charge, and did not seek to charge, plaintiffs for costs and expenses associated with the garage (Collin Aff. 1f 10; Craren Aff. 1f 10; Kohls Aff. 1f 10; Merchant Aff. 1f 7; Stone Aff. 1f 9)." The reason for the plaintiffs having escaped being billed for garage operating expenses are to a large extent explained by the accompanying Affirmation and Opposition of Joel Silver the managing tnetnber of the sponsor, 415 Greenwich Street Owner LLC, and also the Vice President of the Board of Manager of the Tribeca Summit Condominium until sometime in 2010. The above statement indicating that the plaintiffs were not charged for several years in accordance with the By-laws, is completely false and a contrived statement. There is no By-law and never was any By-law which referred to the operating expenses of a garage at 415 Greenwich Street. Furthermore, there is no reason for any such By-law for the Tribeca Summit 5 Condominium since the Tribeca Summit Condominium was never involved in operating any garage at the building. 15. In fact, neither the original sponsor nor the board of managers of the Tribeca Summit Condominium had any familiarity with respect to operating a garage nor did they have any inclination to do so. As to the sponsor, it was more concerned with the sale of condominium units, including the commercial condominium unit comprising the garage premises than with getting involved with starting a garage operation in the building. It is interesting to note that in October 2013 the sponsor sold the Comtnercial Condominium Unit comprising the garage premises to defendant 415 PR LLC and immediately in the next month, November 2013, 415 PR LLC turned around and leased it to an experienced garage operator Park Right Corp. Park Right Corp. commenced operating a garage on the first floor and lower basement levels of the building in December 2013, prior to the commencement of garage operations by Park Right Corp. there was no formal garage operated in the building and the plaintiffs drove their cars into the garage themselves and picked up and removed their cars themselves. There were, in fact, no expenditures at any time by either the sponsor or the board of managers of the Tribeca Sum1nit Condominium or garage operating expenses, since they did not operate a garage during those early years. When Park Right con1menced operations they installed proper garage attendants to park vehicles in specific spots and to bring the vehicles from the spots to the front when the owners of the vehicles arrived to pick up the vehicles, thus, they had salaries to pay, they had to pay rent to the owner of the commercial condominiu1n comprising the garage premises, they installed security catneras and they had insurance and real estate tax expenses. Thus, there were no garage operating expenditures to pro rate among the purchasers of the parking spaces prior to the con1mence1nent of the garage operations by defendant Park Right. 6 THE ARGUMENT SET FORTH IN ITEM H OF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS TO GARAGE EXPENSES CHARGED TO PLAINTIFFS IS INCORRECT. THE STATEMENT THAT THE AMOUN'f SOUGHT FROM THE PLAINTIFFS IS "ABSURD" IS INVALID AND OUTDATED 16. The following statements are contained in Item H of the plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law: "Defendants' position is not only conclusively refuted by the By-laws, Parking Space Riders and Parking Space Licenses, but the position is also absurd." ... "Parking Rights invoices to plaintiffs seeking monthly service charge of $600. (Collin Aff. Exh. D; Craren Aff. 1l D; Kohls Aff. 1l D; Merchant Aff. Exh. C; McGowan Aff. ~ C; Stone Aff. 1ID). That monthly amount is the same that someone off of the street (i.e., without a license to park in the Garage) pays to park in the Garage." 17. A careful scanning of the copies of monthly invoices attached as exhibits to each of the plaintiffs' supporting affidavits shows that the 1nonthly amounts charged to plaintiffs varied starting from December 2013, clearly contradicting the above statement contained as an argUinent in plaintiffs' Memorandmn of Law. More specific information on this point is detailed in paragraph 6 of the supporting affidavit of Park Right's President, Mr. Moshe Izadi. 18. Furthermore, it is a commonly known fact that off-street parking spaces in Manhattan are becoming more and more expensive and there is a diminishing supply of off-street parking spaces available for sale license. A brief search of the internet, in fact, yielded so1ne interesting articles concerning the prices being paid for parking spaces in Manhattan and one also concerning the Park Slope area in Brooklyn, the articles concerned are as follows: (1) A new eleven story 31-unit condo at 15 Renwick Street where there are parking spots which will be priced from $500,000 to $1,000,000 each; (2) the san1e internet article also discusses a new building being built at a neighboring property at 443 Greenwich Street, a 53-unit building where the price for a parking spot available will be $850,000 for a single spot and $1.5 million for double spot; 7 (3) the third article concerns sales of parking spots in a Park Slope garage condominium building where spots are currently being sold for $80,000 each and in addition, the purchasers will pay a monthly maintenance fee of $240.00 per month; and (4) a copy of an article appearing on the New York Times website dated October 24, 2014 with the subheading, "In New York's Luxury Apartments, Amenities Are Costly Add-Ons." I have underlined sections of the article of particular interest. Careful notes should be taken of the item contained on page 4 of the Article concerning the Sale of Licenses for storage cages purchased at a 145- unit building at 56 Leonard Street in Manhattan. Copies of the internet articles in question are annexed hereto as Exhibits A. Please note, I have underlined the pertinent provisions in the aforesaid internet articles as far as the first two buildings in Manhattan are concerned, while it is true that the residential condo units in the building are extremely expensive, it should be pointed out that the residential condominium units purchased by the plaintiffs in above entitled action were each purchased for prices in excess of $1,000,000 million and, upon information and belief, in some cases for several million dollars. 19. An analogous argument could be made along the lines contained in Item H of the Argument section of the plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law that if each of the plaintiffs paid in excess of $1,000,000 for residential unit their additional monthly maintenance payments for the use and occupancy of such residential units in excess of $1,000 each month might also be concluded as being absurd. In addition, it is respectfully submitted that in many Manhattan residential condominium buildings these days it is quite common for parking spaces and storage bins to be sold at expensive prices and despite the payment of such prices there is also added on to the prices a monthly maintenance charge or fee. This is true both in the sale of parking spots and or licensing of storage bins. In most cases, high-rise luxury buildings the nutnber of parking spots available for sale and the number of storage bins available are far less than the total number 8 of residential condominium units contained in the building as a whole. This is one of the reasons for the expensive amounts charged in such buildings for parking spots and storage bins. 20. It is respectfully requested, that on the basis of the facts contained in this Affirmation along with the Exhibits annexed thereto, on the affidavits in opposition submitted by co-defendant 415 PR LLC and on the Affidavits of Joel Silver and Moshe Izadi, President of defendant Park Right and the Exhibits annexed thereto and upon the Memorandum of Law In Opposition to the Motion of defendant Park Right, along with the Exhibits annexed to said Memorandum that plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be denied in all respects. Dated: December 21, 2015 9