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
- 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
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fines
- Foreclosure
- Fraud
- Governance
- Gym
- House Rules
- Indemnification
- Indemnification/Subrogation
- Injunction
- 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
- Sales
- Service of Process
- Sponsor
- Statute of Limitations
- Stock/Shares
- Stocks/Shares
- Sublets
- Succession Rights
- Tax
- Third-Party Liability
- Transfers
- Trespassing
- Trial Practice
- Violations
- Warranty of Habitability
- Yellowstone Injunction
- Zoning
First published: Mar 2025
Luxury Turns Into LiabilityTAKEAWAY Sometimes less is more and discretion is the better part of valor. When a condo board wants to sue for construction defects, it should be careful about who it names in the lawsuit. This case shows that naming successor sponsor/developers or a sponsor/developer’s individual members unnecessarily can lead to wasted time and dismissed claims. In this situation, since the construction defects were solely created by the original sponsor/developer or on behalf of the sponsor/developer, the claims against the successor sponsor/developers and sponsor/developer executives were thrown out entirely. Significantly, the case also confirms that condo boards can only bring viable fraud claims based on affirmative misrepresentations in the offering plan, not omissions in the offering plan.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2025
Hallway HeadachesTAKEAWAY In the absence of an express written agreement or specific bylaw provision, a cooperative corporation is not obligated to repurchase common area space or shares from a shareholder-tenant who previously purchased but was unable to use such space in connection with an alteration. Here, although the co-op had agreed in principle to repurchase unused hallway space and shares from the plaintiff, in the absence of a final agreement or applicable bylaw provision, it had no obligation to do so or to waive its standard closing costs. Cooperative corporations and shareholder-tenants should consult the corporation’s bylaws to determine what terms govern the sale and later repurchase of common area space and cooperative shares. To the extent that the bylaws are silent on such issues, parties should consider including repurchase terms in any purchase and sale agreement for common area space and additional shares, to avoid a future dispute regarding the terms of repurchase by the corporation.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2025
Condo Board Prevails in Transfer Fee Lawsuit Due to Plaintiff's Procedural ErrorTHE LESSON FOR BOARDS This case is a clear reminder that statute and case law require that a condominium be sued in the name of its president or treasurer, and that those individuals be served on behalf of the entity. Many times, condominiums are not properly named or served but do not move to dismiss on that basis; if there are no statute of limitations issues, boards often assume the plaintiff will just do it correctly at a later date. What is interesting here is that without any indication as to why, the court ordered that costs and disbursements be awarded to the condominium. While that is likely not a large sum, it makes one wonder if the court was disturbed by the failure of the plaintiff to comply with well-settled law.
Read full articleFirst published: Feb 2025
The Price of Control: A Parc Vendome TaleTAKEAWAY Board members do not expect to incur personal liability for their service. This case is an extreme example showing that it can happen where a board has been found to have deliberately failed to follow the governing documents and contractual requirements with improper motives. The court’s ruling would seem to preclude the board members from receiving indemnification from the condominium under the bylaws, and might be excluded from coverage under the applicable directors and officers insurance policy. In the underlying suit, the commercial unit owner is seeking more than $11.5 million of damages. If upheld on appeal, the individual board members will be on the hook for the eventual award of damages and for the fees and costs of that litigation if not covered by insurance.
Read full articleFirst published: Feb 2025
Condo Board's Negligence Leads to Liability in Sidewalk Tripping Hazard CaseTHE LESSON FOR BOARDS This sidewalk tale, one of the most common types of legal action, serves as a reminder for co-op and condo board directors that under the New York City administrative code, property owners bear not only the responsibility for their buildings but also for the safety of the adjacent public sidewalks. This crucial duty cannot be delegated or brushed aside. Regular and thorough inspections, coupled with prompt repairs, are paramount in limiting the risk of personal injury claims. The story underscores another crucial point: No matter how obvious a hazardous condition might appear, it doesn't absolve property owners from their duty. The safety and well-being of pedestrians remain a top priority and cannot be compromised. COUNSEL For Maria Villeda: Siegel & Coonerty For the Board and Jamaica East Condominium: Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman
Read full articleFirst published: Jan 2025
Battling GoliathTAKEAWAY The government is different from you and me. So it is not always easy to hold the government to legal standards that apply to individuals and corporations—but it can happen. Here, the appellate court found that the City’s efforts to move the Brooklyn property from one program to another could not stand. The tenants had participated for years in the TIL program, and presumably were working towards creating an HDFC cooperative for themselves. The City’s unilateral efforts to pull the property from that pathway were, for the time being, stopped. It remains to be seen if discovery or other evidence comes to light that renders the City’s actions warranted by law.
Read full articleFirst published: Jan 2025
Alteration Agreement To The RescueTAKEAWAY This case demonstrates how a well-crafted alteration agreement can protect a cooperative or condominium from legal liability and costs of defense when, as happens frequently enough, an apartment renovation is unsuccessful. Here, the shareholder’s duty to indemnify and hold the cooperative harmless for work performed by her contractor shielded the board in the absence of insurance. Where was the insurance? The alteration agreement explicitly required the shareholder to produce the contractor’s certificates for $1 million in liability insurance and $500,000 workmen’s compensation insurance naming the cooperative, management, and the shareholders as additional insureds. Unfortunately, property manager Douglas Elliman claimed – suspiciously, according to Mandracchia – that the certificates were lost and could not be located. In any event, boards should have their alteration agreement forms reviewed by counsel, especially if such a review has not been conducted recently, to ensure that the alteration agreement contains appropriate protection for the building and the board and incorporates current developments in the law.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2024
Having Plans Isn’t EnoughTAKEAWAY The court’s decision shows just how crucial meticulous documentation can be when accidents happen. While it’s common for buildings to have maintenance schedules and inspection protocols, the Downtown Condominium case reveals that simply having these plans isn’t enough—you need to prove they’re being followed. The building’s resident manager testified that the deck was supposed to be checked twice daily, but he couldn't provide records showing these inspections actually happened. This gap in documentation proved costly when the lawsuit came, providing a stark reminder that in today’s legal environment, if you didn’t write it down, it might as well not have happened. For board members and building staff, this means creating clear paper trails for everything from routine inspections to weather-related responses. When snow is coming, document your preparations. When ice forms, record your removal efforts. Keep detailed logs of who checked what and when. Take photos. Save security footage. These records might seem tedious to maintain, but they can make the difference between winning and losing a lawsuit.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2024
The Do-Over That Didn’t WorkTAKEAWAY A court will not give a defaulting unit owner a free pass and will not allow the revocation of a settlement agreement presumably made in good faith. A “do over” will also not be permitted by a court when, in the “glaring light” of hindsight, a delinquent shareholder changes his mind about a settlement agreement. A promise made by a shareholder to pay an agreed upon monetary amount for the violation of the cooperative’s bylaws and occupancy agreement can be reasonably relied upon by a board of directors. That promise, if broken, can also be the basis for liability and a monetary judgment.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2024
Nightmare On Astor PlaceTAKEAWAY Courts tend to take discrimination claims very seriously. Boards and managing agents should diligently and repeatedly instruct all staff members to not conduct themselves in a manner that may reasonably be deemed to constitute harassment (sexual or otherwise), and the awareness of any inappropriate conduct by any staff member must be immediately reported to a supervisor, the managing agent, or the board. Further, all persons in a supervisory position, after being on notice of inappropriate conduct by a staff member, must immediately notify their supervisors and must take necessary and appropriate actions to cause the discountenance of such inappropriate conduct.
Read full article