Case Notes
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.
Category
- Access
- Alterations
- Appeals
- Arbitration
- Assessment
- Attorney Fees
- Attorney-Client
- Authority to Sue
- Balcony/Terrace Rights
- Bike Lane
- Board of Directors
- Board of Managers
- Books and Records
- Breach of Lease
- Business Judgment Rule
- Bylaws
- Bylaws/House Rules
- Certificate of Occupancy
- Charges/Fees
- Commercial Unit
- Common Element
- Common Elements
- Companion Animal
- Constitutionality
- Construction Defects
- Contracts
- Conversion
- Defamation
- Discovery
- Discrimination
- Due Diligence
- Easement
- Elections
- Estate
- Eviction
- Eviction/Termination
- Federal Courts Supplemental Jurisdiction
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fines
- Foreclosure
- Fraud
- Governance
- Gym
- Hoarding
- House Rules
- Indemnification
- Indemnification/Subrogation
- Injunction
- Inspection of Records
- Insurance
- Labor Law
- Liability of Directors
- Licenses
- Liens
- Maintenance
- Malpractice
- Management
- Mechanic's Lien
- Mediation
- Misrepresentations
- Motion Practice
- Motion Practive
- Negligence
- Notice of Pendency
- Nuisance
- Occupancy Agreement
- Ownership
- Parking
- Partnership
- Personal Injury
- Pets
- Property Damage
- Proprietary Lease
- Reasonableness
- Receivership
- Release
- Repairs
- Representations
- RPAPL 881
- Sales
- Service of Process
- Sponsor
- Statute of Limitations
- Stock/Shares
- Stocks/Shares
- Sublets
- Succession Rights
- Tax
- Third-Party Liability
- Transfers
- Trespassing
- Trial Practice
- Veil Piercing
- Violations
- Warranty of Habitability
- Yellowstone Injunction
- Zoning
First published: Feb 2026
Packages, Protests, and Protected SpeechTAKEAWAY As noted by Judge Rosado, this is a case about “good corporate citizenship.” This decision reinforces that courts strongly protect resident and board communications with regulators, even when motivated by hostility toward a commercial neighbor. Boards do not incur tort liability simply by raising safety or quality of life issues with city agencies, even if those complaints lead to inspections, police visits, or business disruption. However, the opinion also implicitly warns against informal or personal tactics. Allegations about publishing a tenant’s phone number, encouraging harassment, or staging confrontations, while insufficient here, illustrate how easily governance disputes can escalate into reputational and litigation risk. Best practice remains disciplined procedural enforcement: written rule violations, documented inspections, coordinated communication through counsel, and reliance on formal regulatory mechanisms. Boards should avoid acting as neighborhood activists and instead operate as corporate fiduciaries. When boards remain institutional, neutral, and process-driven, they benefit from both substantive tort defenses and the powerful shield of New York’s anti-SLAPP statute.
Read full articleFirst published: Feb 2026
The Consequences of Rolling Back RightsTAKEAWAY This case demonstrates that once a board conveys important amenities to a tenant that are maintained for years, an attempt to later claw them back through a change to the house rules risks a lawsuit. The appellate court’s decision shows that if there is evidence that the rule change may have targeted and discriminated against a particular tenant or group of tenants, a court may hold that the business judgement rule does not apply to allow for a quick summary dismissal, leaving the board to face the bad publicity, acrimony, time demands, and costs of ongoing litigation. Still, the appellate court’s decision to let stand the trial court dismissals of counts relating to the freight elevator rule changes, notwithstanding their sweeping nature and seemingly adverse business implications for commercial tenants in a heavily commercial building, demonstrate that the business judgment rule’s protections are still quite substantial. It is also helpful, as occurred here, for a board to pass a more general rule that clarifies and provides notice regarding its powers prior to taking action on particular amenities through a house rule.
Read full articleFirst published: Jan 2026
How Common Are your ElementsTAKEAWAY This decision underscores that disputes over assessment responsibility in condominiums rise or fall on the plain language of its governing documents. Where a condo declaration defines common elements to include building components that both encompass multiple units and benefit the building as a whole, courts will not allow cost-shifting by owners trying to recharacterize façade work based on subjective benefit or physical location. Legally mandated façade inspections and repairs under Local Law 11 are treated as building-wide obligations, and absent express exclusions, all unit owners must pay their proportional share. However, condo boards are not immune from scrutiny: accounting transparency, improperly filed liens, and allocation of non-façade repair work may still give rise to viable claims depending on the facts.
Read full articleFirst published: Jan 2026
A Key Refusal, Among Other ThingsTAKEAWAY Before terminating a proprietary lease based on objectionable conduct, boards must carefully document specific incidents of default and clearly explain how the shareholder’s actions harmed other residents or the building. The dates and times of the incidents as well as the specific clauses of the proprietary lease and house rules that are allegedly breached should be sufficiently detailed as well. In appropriate circumstances, especially in view of a well drafted complaint, the court will order an eviction/ejectment of the defaulting shareholder as well as referral to a referee for a calculation of damages. This, in turn, enables a co-op to bypass landlord-tenant court and tenant friendly judges who may sympathize with the shareholder and provide an unjustified opportunity to cure.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2025
Sublet by Another Name?TAKEAWAY The court’s decision turned on whether Montali’s specific request was truly necessary for her to live in and enjoy her apartment. It concluded that other, less drastic options were available to address the limitations caused by her disability, and that her proposal went beyond what the law required — particularly where the request appeared to at least be partly driven by financial considerations rather than medical necessity. However, the motivations behind the co-op’s alleged retaliatory actions could not be resolved so easily, and the court said they warranted closer scrutiny. The case serves as a reminder that board members and managing agents should proceed carefully, and consult counsel, before communicating directly with residents on sensitive accommodation or enforcement issues that could later become the basis for litigation.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2025
Did No One Notice?TAKEAWAY The key lesson is that no matter how outrageous the facts seem to be, a party asking for summary judgment, which is a request for the judge to decide the case without a trial, must be able to convince the court that there really are no issues of fact. Courts have long required that anyone seeking summary judgment present solid, detailed evidence showing that they are entitled to win as a matter of law and that all meaningful factual questions have been resolved. If the moving party cannot meet this high standard—because the request is premature or the evidence is incomplete—the court has no choice but to deny its motion for summary judgment.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2025
Don’t Dawdle Over Service DogsTAKEAWAY This case highlights the legal risks condo boards face when they postpone or mishandle disability-related accommodation requests. The Monarch board did not respond in a timely way to a request for a service dog, asked for medical records despite the condo having a stated policy against doing so and hired a psychiatrist without ever giving a clear decision on the request. Boards should respond promptly, in writing, whenever an accommodation request is made. They should also understand what qualifies as a disability under the various federal and state statutes affecting disabilities and know what documentation they are legally allowed to request. Finally, because claims against individual board members can move forward if there are allegations of their personal involvement, board members should ensure requests are handled quickly, carefully, and consistently to reduce the risk of liability.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2025
A Tax Abatement TangleTAKEAWAY Challenging decisions made by city agencies is almost never straightforward. In a case like this, where the mistake seems to have come from the Department of Finance rather than the co-op, the real question becomes: who is responsible for fixing it? Should the shareholder have taken the lead, or was it the co-op’s job to push the agency for correction? What’s clear is that the situation snowballed. A relatively routine $4,000 assessment grew into a years-long dispute that ultimately cost Tracy Schusterman more than $100,000 in legal fees.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2025
From Clutter to CourtroomTAKEAWAY As our population ages, hoarding situations are becoming increasingly common. When direct efforts to gain a resident’s cooperation fail, boards can seek court orders requiring owners to clean up and correct hazardous conditions that threaten health, safety, or the well-being of other residents and the building. The evidence of the conditions should be as current and thorough as possible in order to accurately convey to the court the seriousness and exigency of the present circumstances. To prepare for such situations, boards should ensure they have up-to-date emergency contact information for all owners, which can be vital in resolving these issues quickly. In some cases, agencies such as Adult Protective Services can be brought in to provide support and intervention.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2025
No Party for the Party WallTAKEAWAY Although the developer did not win, the law may soon shift in their favor. In June 2025, both houses of the New York State Legislature passed an amendment to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 881. If the Governor signs it, the new law would allow developers to ask a court for permission to install permanent encroachments, such as underpinning, when doing demolition or foundation work. This would be a major change — currently, courts can only grant temporary access. The new law is expected to face challenges, but it clearly tilts the balance toward developers. This case highlights why careful negotiation matters. The record in this case reveals some of the major concerns that may arise from an adjacent building’s construction including lack of adequate crack monitoring, rodent infestation, trespassing workers, attempted break-ins from the scaffolding, cancellation of the co-op’s property insurance on account of possible underpinning, and a major increase in insurance premiums going forward. It's important to be proactive. If a neighboring developer seeks access, boards should work closely with their attorney, architect, and engineer to negotiate the strongest possible license agreement. That agreement should ensure the developer reimburses the building for its legal and professional fees and includes protections for the property and residents. A well-drafted license agreement should address all of these risks — possibly including license fees, escrowed funds to cover ongoing costs, and clear procedures for handling any damage that occurs.
Read full article