Legal Decisions…Simplified and Specific.
A distinguished panel of New York co-op/condo attorneys analyze recent NY co-op/condo decisions. Subscribers receive a monthly PDF Digest of these case summaries and takeaways, an Advance Sheet of co-op/condo court cases recently decided, and access to the searchable Tracker database.
Take a Test Drive for $130-Day Test Drive. Cancel Anytime.
The Specifics of Search Success…
Addressing the specific and unique needs of today’s niche community of New York's co-op and condo professionals, Case Law Tracker does the heavy lifting—combing through and drawing out the cases most relevant to your needs.
Case Summaries
Focusing only on co-op and condo cases, practicing attorneys in this field prepare case summaries and useful takeaways - helping you understand what the case is about so you can quickly determine if it benefits you.
Case View
Our Quick View feature enables you to instantly determine if the case is relevant to your needs and provides you with a fast click to the full details of the case including judges, case history, as well as an active slip op link to related court documents.
Monthly Digest & Monthly Advance Sheet
A pdf Digest of all co-op/condo cases added to the database is emailed monthly to you. Plus, to keep you up to date on what the courts have most recently decided, you'll receive, monthly, an Advance Sheet with case names, decision and docket links, judges, and brief decision excerpts.
Searchable Database
Speeding you to exactly what you need, our robust search offers: a simple quick search; dropdown menus to refine that search; and powerful filtering capability that lets you drill down even further by court, judge, residence, tag, and date.
Advisory Panel
Our experienced advisory committee, comprised of industry-specific experts who truly understand the issues that matter to you, write the case summaries. They know what you need to know and help you get to that information as quickly and easily as possible.
Case Watch
Emailed twice-monthly, Case Watch focus on providing insight on one particularly relevant case—clearly explaining what happened, why it’s important, and what lessons can be learned within. Case Watch reaches two audiences: lawyers who subscribe to the Co-op & Condo Case Law Tracker and Habitat Magazine subscribers (co-op and condo board directors, property managers and other industry professionals).
Case Notes See all
Case Notes provides insight on one particularly relevant co-op or condo case—clearly explaining what happened, why it’s important, and what lessons can be learned within.
First published: Nov 2024
The Battle Over the Super’s ApartmentTAKEAWAY Many condominiums and cooperatives have apartments that are dedicated as residences for the resident manager during the term of his or her employment. Boards should be careful to have agreements in place with their superintendents that specifically provide for the permitted occupancy to be incident to the continued employment of such person in that position. The ultimate eviction of a former superintendent may take several months, and sometimes an eager board will opt to enter into a stipulation of settlement with a terminated superintendent with respect to the ultimate delivery of possession of the apartment. However, it is important for boards to reserve all rights to recover damages for any unpermitted use and occupancy. In this case, the condominium board entered into a stipulation of settlement with the defendant as part of the eviction proceeding, but then later brought the unjust enrichment claim seeking recovery of its expenses after the superintendent vacated the unit.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2024
Court Grants Access to Adjoining Properties for Necessary RepairsTHE LESSON FOR BOARDS Enacted in 1968, RPL 881 was designed to address the needs of building owners who need access to a neighboring property in order to perform improvements or repairs to their property. When that can’t be agreed upon amicably or a request isn’t even acknowledged, as was the case here, RPL 881 provides a legal framework for obtaining court orders to gain access to a property. Note that Columbus House began requesting access in May 2022, and finally received a court decision granting it nearly 15 months later, underscoring the need for boards to pay attention to FISP timetables, particularly if an access agreement is necessary.
Read full articleFirst published: Oct 2024
‘Death Of Lessee’ Provision PitfallsTAKEAWAY The central legal issue here is over the meaning of a lease provision known as the “Death of Lessee” provision. The Death of Lessee provision in this proprietary lease is a typical variant that provides that if a shareholder dies, “consent shall not be unreasonably withheld to an assignment of the lease and shares to a financially responsible member of the Lessee’s family.” There are several potential interpretative pitfalls in this provision, two of which are at issue in this case. First, what is the meaning of the phrase “member of the Lessee’s family”? Does a niece qualify? Complicating matters is that, while “family member” is not defined here, a different provision of this co-op’s proprietary lease limited use of the apartment to shareholders and their “children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters.” Does the fact that this other provision does not include nieces mean that “member of Lessee’s family” should also be read to not include nieces? Or does the fact that the Death of Lessee provision not specifically list immediate family members imply an intent to read “family member” more broadly? Second, the parties disagreed over what it means for the co-op to “not unreasonably withhold” consent. According to the co-op, this means nothing more than it could not act unreasonably in denying consent. In this case, the co-op contended that Stauber had engaged in a “pattern of disruptive behavior” and showed “an utter lack of judgment and inability to get along with others,” which provided a basis for rejecting her application. According to Stauber, however, the reasonableness standard must be confined to the elements specifically identified in the text of the provision – whether she is “financially responsible” and whether she is a “member of the Lessee’s family.” Thus, in Stauber’s view, the alleged behavior identified by the co-op is legally irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether she is a financially responsible member of Cohen’s family. By denying summary judgment in favor of additional discovery, the court deferred resolving these ambiguities. For co-op boards looking to avoid these problems in the first place, the lesson here may be to consider amending your “Death of Lessee” provision to resolve these two potential sources of conflict.
Read full article