First published: Apr 2026

Paper Bags and Paper Wars

TAKEAWAY 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.

BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 100 W 93 CONDOMINIUM v. 660 COLUMBUS RETAIL OWNER LLC

WHAT HAPPENED It started with a simple rule: condo unit-owners at 100 West 93rd Street, at the corner of Columbus Avenue and West 93rd Street, could not block or obstruct common areas. For nearly two years the board and the commercial unit owner (660 Columbus) had been corresponding about this rule because Trader Joe's, the unit's commercial tenant, used the sidewalk for unloading grocery products. The board had even shared a draft of the new rule with 660 Columbus before it was adopted. When the rule took effect on October 1, 2023, the board began recording violations — and the fines started accumulating fast. By the end of October alone, 19 violations had been logged and 660 Columbus had been assessed $23,000. The board continued issuing notices as the violations kept coming, and by December 31, the total had reached $427,500.

The backlash was swift. The commercial unit-owner pushed back on the fines, contesting the validity of the rule that had generated them. The board, in turn, found itself buried in discovery demands — requests for documents, videos, and other records that it argued were excessive and burdensome. What had begun as a dispute over sidewalk obstructions outside a grocery store had become a sprawling legal fight, with both sides battling not just over the underlying violations but over how much paperwork each was obligated to produce before the case could even be heard.

IN COURT The court addressed several discovery disputes, most of them centered on how much burden the condominium board should have to bear in producing records.

First, the board sought to designate two of its seven members as "custodians of records." The commercial unit owner wanted all seven board members included, arguing that the board might withhold documents otherwise. The court sided with the board, finding that two custodians were sufficient.

Second, the defendant asked the court to appoint an outside vendor to collect electronically stored information for discovery. The court declined, holding that the board should first be allowed to handle document production in-house rather than being forced to retain a third-party e-discovery vendor.

Third, the court ordered the board to produce certain non-privileged engineering reports related to a separate dispute over how common charges are calculated under the condominium's governing documents.

Finally, as to videos of the sidewalk in the board's possession, the court ruled that it was enough for the board to make the footage available for inspection. If the defendant wanted copies, it could pay to obtain them itself.

COUNSEL for 100 West 93 Condominium Board: ALLY HACK, SLAVA HAZIN, Warshaw Burstein; for 660 Columbus Retail Owner: ROBERT A. ABRAMS, STEVEN H. NEWMAN, BRITTANY E. SHERMAN GELBS, CAROLINE MANSOUR, Katsky Korins, PATRICK FRANK PALLADINO, JEREMY S. SIMON, Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden; Justice Lyle E. Frank