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: Apr 2026
Paper Bags and Paper WarsTAKEAWAY For condo boards, this case is a reminder that the most mundane-seeming disputes — in this instance, a grocery store blocking a sidewalk during deliveries — can metastasize into years of costly litigation. The fight at 100 West 93rd Street has been going on since January 2022, and as of March 2026, the case has yet to be heard on its merits. It is still mired in pretrial skirmishing over documents. But there are two lessons here worth noting. The first is that preparation matters. The board spent nearly two years corresponding with the commercial unit owner before issuing a single fine, and shared a draft of the new rule with the defendant before it was even adopted. That kind of documented, good-faith process is hard to attack in court — and appears to have served the board well so far. The second lesson is that rule drafting has consequences. The board's Rule 31 established an escalating fine structure that started at $500 per violation and climbed steeply with each subsequent infraction. Applied to nearly daily violations over three months, it produced a $427,500 claim. Boards considering similar enforcement rules should understand that clear, well-drafted language carries real financial weight — and that the other side will fight hard to have it thrown out.
Read full articleFirst published: Apr 2026
The High Cost of Ignoring HabitabilityTAKEAWAY Water leaks are a fact of life in buildings, and mold often follows. When those conditions make an apartment unsafe or unlivable, as they did here, the resident will usually have a valid claim under the Warranty of Habitability. This is where the board in this case went seriously wrong. The board appears to have relied on its insurance carrier or adjuster for guidance on these legal questions rather than seeking proper legal counsel. It was a mistake to take the position that the Warranty of Habitability did not apply. Another incorrect assumption was arguing that its repair obligations were limited only to items that were “original” to the building. On top of that, it tried to condition Ms. Siegel’s ability to use her own contractor on her paying part of the co-op’s insurance deductible and the adjuster’s fee. In practical terms, these positions amounted to a refusal to make the necessary repairs. Because of that, Ms. Siegel was fully within her rights to reject the board’s proposal and proceed with repairs using her own contractor. Boards should take this as a clear warning. Repair obligations are not confined to a single “Repair” section of the proprietary lease. Most leases include additional provisions that address what happens when there is damage from events like leaks or flooding, and the Warranty of Habitability adds yet another layer of responsibility. These obligations work together, and they cannot be ignored or narrowly interpreted. The case ultimately reads like a textbook on the many legal problems that can arise from leaks and flooding, including evidence issues, lease interpretation, and how the Warranty of Habitability interacts with contractual repair obligations and established law. It stands as a strong cautionary example—and a reminder that boards need experienced legal advice when handling these situations.
Read full articleFirst published: Apr 2026
Fix My Condo!THE LESSON FOR BOARDS Newly constructed condominiums often have construction defects, and it is not uncommon for newly constituted condo boards to sue sponsors for contract and non-contract claims (such as fraud and fiduciary duty claims). It is equally common for the sponsor to move to dismiss those claims. In particular, sponsors and their representatives are often successful in dismissing fraud claims on the theory that those claims are really just breach of contract claims phrased in more “intimidating” language. The plaintiffs in this case were able to survive the motion to dismiss because they described specific building defects that the sponsor and its representatives were actually aware of and actively concealed or failed to address.
Read full article