First published: Feb 2026
Packages, Protests, and Protected Speech
TAKEAWAY 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.
METROSPEEDY OPERATIONS, LLC V. NORDSTROM
WHAT HAPPENED In July 2021, MetroSpeedy Operations, a last-mile delivery company, entered into a 10-year sublease for a ground-floor commercial unit at 113 West 25th Street. It ran a high-volume “micro-fulfillment” delivery hub from this space. In the following two years it consolidated its operations, significantly increasing its activity, and raising resident concerns about sidewalk congestion, noise, fire safety risks (including lithium battery storage), and general disruption to the building and surrounding area. The co-op issued a notice of objectionable conduct to the commercial unit’s sublessor, who initially served MetroSpeedy with a termination notice, but later withdrew it. During this period, residents also made complaints to the NYPD, FDNY, and local elected officials.
IN COURT MetroSpeedy sued the co-op, certain shareholders (including the board president), a neighboring spa, and city officials, alleging that the resident actions were not ordinary complaints but part of a coordinated effort to force the company out of the building. It alleged that they worked together to harass the business and interfere with its operations, claiming that this campaign caused its primary client, Fresh Direct, to significantly reduce its business with MetroSpeedy. The court held that virtually all its claims failed as a matter of law. Crucially, though, the court found that the residents’ complaints to police and city officials constituted protected “public petition” under New York’s anti-SLAPP law and because of this the resident defendants were entitled to attorneys’ fees.
COUNSEL for MetroSpeedy BENJAMIN Z. CLINGER, BZC Law; for the defendants MICHAEL TODD PARKER, WENDY WITTEN TANNENBAUM, Parker Pohl, EVAN A. RICHMAN, Fleischner Potash, ANNA GUILIANO, Borah, Goldstein, Nahins & Goidel, PAUL WILLIAM SIEGERT, Paul W. Siegert, Attorney At Law, LULU WU, Wu Law Group, GRANT STEVEN PUDALOV, Grant Pudalov, DAVID ANGELATOS, CINDY ARLANA SINGH, New York City Law Department; Justice Lisa S. Headley
