After the decision and judgment entered by this Court in the above-numbered case, multiple post judgment motions for clarification, to amend or alter the judgment, for reconsideration and for further findings of fact were filed by the parties. I now deny all the post judgment motions except as set forth herein.
The language in line eleven of page 38 of the decision should be amended by striking therefrom the word "valet" and substituting therefor the word "public" since valet parking did not commence until after the institution of this action.
The parties differ as to whether the testimony supports the differentiation by the Court in footnote 7 of page 38 between valet parking of the Sail Loft/Marina and Cherrystones. While the evidence as to the actual physical use of valets by the former during BWT's management is the subject of controversy, I adhere to the language of my decision.
There is an area, however, in which I believe the decision should be clarified. It implicitly, but not expressly, recognizes the so-called "deeded parking rights" as part of a common scheme although such rights were not expressly reserved in the Declaration. Accordingly, I additionally find and rule that the defendants Richard L. Kanter, et al, as Trustees of Marina Nominee Trust, and as Trustees of Wharf Nominee Trust, as owners of the premises described in Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7, have the benefit of an appurtenat shared right to licenses for the parking of ten cars as alleged in their respective cross claims to the plaintiff's second amended complaint.
As intended by my order dated October 7, 1987 and the decision, the determination of the amount of damages, if any, awaits the final conclusion of any appeals from the decision, this supplementary decision, the judgment and amended judgment. Similarly, the resolution of questions posed by Waterfront Parking Corp., et al, as to its future rights and obligations at this juncture of the action would be premature. A declaratory judgment thereo awaits final resolution on appeal.