First published: Mar 2026
Bathroom Battle
THE LESSON FOR BOARDS Boards retain broad discretion to enforce the rules and regulations of the building in different ways, as long as they do not single out a shareholder for harmful or selective enforcement and otherwise act in what they believe to be the best interests of the cooperative. Special arrangements with shareholders should be memorialized in writing in the interests of both parties in order to avoid questions from future boards who may not have been parties to the initial agreement.
AVRAHAMI V. 235 WEST 108TH STREET OWNERS CORP.
WHAT HAPPENED Ram Avrahami and Andrea Gural purchased shares at the 35-unit Harlem co-op at 235 West 108th St. in 2007. The apartment contained a Jacuzzi tub, and the couple used it for a decade without any complaints. In 2017, however, the building superintendent (who lived below them) noticed that the tub was sinking, and later also notified them that their toilet was leaking into her apartment. The shareholders made arrangements to fix the two conditions. The tub and toilet were duly removed, repairs were completed on May 3, and the contractor was scheduled to reinstall the jacuzzi two days later.
But at its monthly meeting on May 3, the board became concerned that the building’s aging plumbing system could not be burdened with tubs of this type. It notified the shareholders the next day that they would not be allowed to reinstall the Jacuzzi and instead authorized the installation of an ordinary tub. Subsequently, the managing agent sent a letter to the couple stating that there was no record that the apartment’s prior owner had ever received permission for the jacuzzi’s initial installation.
Avrahami and Gural filed suit against the co-op. They claimed breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The co-op moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that its decision was protected by the business judgment rule. In response, the plaintiffs claimed that the board’s action was arbitrary and capricious and had unfairly singled them out, and hence was not protected by the business judgment rule.
IN COURT The court found that the board had acted in good faith in denying reinstallation of the Jacuzzi tub because whirlpools were prohibited under the proprietary lease, the tub was in fact sinking, and the board’s decision was based on the general policy prohibiting such installations out of concern for the structure of the building and its plumbing and electrical systems. Moreover, the plaintiffs could not show any written consent to the original installation of the whirlpool, so they did not acquire any “vested” right to continue to use it.
ATTORNEYS
For Avrahami: Ram Avrahami
For Gural: The Silber Law Firm
For the co-op: Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli
