Case Name: 61 West 62 Owners Corp., Respondent, v. CGM EMP LLC et al., Appellants, and West 63 Empire Associates LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2011-03-31
Citations: 16 N.Y.3d 822
Docket Number: 
Parties: 61 West 62 Owners Corp., Respondent, v CGM EMP LLC et al., Appellants, and West 63 Empire Associates LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 822–824

Head Matter:
[946 NE2d 172, 921 NYS2d 184]
61 West 62 Owners Corp., Respondent, v CGM EMP LLC et al., Appellants, and West 63 Empire Associates LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Decided March 31, 2011
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, New York City (Bruce F. Bronster and Gregory J. Kerr of counsel), for appellants.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York City (Steven D. Sladkus and Christopher Cobb of counsel), for 61 West 62 Owners Corp., respondent.
Cozen O’Connor, New York City (Michael C. Schmidt and Menachem J. Kastner of counsel), for West 63 Empire Associates LLC, respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by remitting to the Appellate Division for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
The failure of authorities to issue a violation of the New York City Noise Control Code (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 24-201 et seq.), by itself, does not preclude plaintiff from establishing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. However, it cannot be said on this record that the imposition of a provisional remedy is required as a matter of law. Therefore, the case should be remitted to the Appellate Division for the exercise of its discretion.
We have considered appellants' other contention, and determine that it lacks merit.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
Respondent West 63 Empire Associates LLC is not eligible for affirmative relief in this appeal and we express no view on the arguments it has made in that regard (see Matter of Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y. Home Care v New York State Dept. of Health, 5 NY3d 499, 507 [2005]).