Pomona Country Club, Inc. v. Escoffery

2021 NY Slip Op 51022(U)

Pomona Country Club, Inc., Respondent, v. Alan Escoffery, Trustee of the Alan Escoffery Revocable Living Trust, or his Successor in Trust, Under Declaration of Trust Dated May 2, 2019, Including Amendments Thereto, Appellant.

2019-952 RO C

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

October 21, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

Alan Escoffery, appellant pro se.

Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Esqs. (Scott A. Dow of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Wesley Hills, Rockland County (Michael B. Silvermintz, J.), entered March 1, 2019. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2, 930.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed without costs.

In this action, plaintiff, an incorporated homeowners' association for a residential community, seeks to recover the principal sum of $2, 930, based on the failure of defendant/homeowner Alan Escoffery Revocable Living Trust (Trust) to pay four semiannual assessments and related late fees. Defendant interposed counterclaims.

At a nonjury trial, it was established that, in 1996, Alan Escoffery, in his individual capacity, had acquired a residential property (the premises) located on a private road within plaintiff's boundaries, and that, in 2010 plaintiff had sued Escoffery in the Supreme Court, Rockland County, based on Escoffery's failure to pay assessments to plaintiff (the Supreme Court action). Escoffery, who was represented by counsel in the Supreme Court action, challenged plaintiff's authority to charge him assessments on grounds including plaintiff's alleged noncompliance with laws pertaining to homeowners' associations, his nonmembership in plaintiff, the fact that he did not use many of plaintiff's facilities, and an easement in his deed, which, he claimed, entitled him to use plaintiff's private roads without paying assessments to plaintiff. The Supreme Court rejected all of Escoffery's arguments and awarded a judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a finding that Escoffery had had actual and constructive notice that plaintiff was providing facilities and services for the benefit of community residences and that he was thus subject to an implied-in-fact contract which included an obligation to pay for the facilities and services offered (Pomona Country Club, Inc. v Alan Escoffery, Sup Ct, Rockland County, Jan. 26, 2017, Gerald E. Loehr, J., index No. 014495/2010).

Escoffery subsequently transferred title to the premises to defendant Trust, of which he is trustee. Escoffery continued to reside in the premises. Plaintiff invoiced the Trust for semiannual assessments and late fees, all of which the Trust failed to pay, and thereafter commenced this action, seeking to recover those sums. Plaintiff argued in the Justice Court that the decision in the Supreme Court action had established the obligation of Escoffery, individually, as the owner of the premises located within plaintiff's boundaries, to pay plaintiff assessments such as those sought herein, and that Escoffery's subsequent transfer of title to the premises to a trust of which he was the trustee, while he continued to reside in the premises, did not alter the property owner's obligation to pay assessments. Escoffery, as trustee, argued that the Trust was exempt from the payment of plaintiff's assessments for the same reasons Escoffery had cited in the Supreme Court action, asserted that the Supreme Court action had been incorrectly decided, and also claimed that plaintiff was not entitled to the payment of assessments because the services it provided were inadequate.

Following the trial, the Justice Court dismissed the counterclaims and awarded judgment to plaintiff upon a finding that the Trust had had actual and constructive notice that plaintiff provides amenities including road maintenance and snow plowing, among others, to properties within its borders, and that it would be unfair to permit homeowners to pick and choose among the services for which they pay. As limited by the brief, Escoffery, as trustee, appeals from so much of the judgment entered March 1, 2019 as awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2, 930.

"The doctrine of collateral estoppel 'precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or...