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
- Damages
- Defamation
- Discovery
- Discrimination
- Due Diligence
- Easement
- Elections
- Estate
- Eviction
- Eviction/Termination
- Federal Courts Supplemental Jurisdiction
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fines
- Foreclosure
- Fraud
- Governance
- Ground Lease
- Gym
- Hoarding
- House Rules
- Housing Development Fund Corporation
- 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: Apr 2026
Paper Bags and Paper WarsTAKEAWAY 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.
Read full articleFirst published: Apr 2026
The High Cost of Ignoring HabitabilityTAKEAWAY Water leaks are a fact of life in buildings, and mold often follows. When those conditions make an apartment unsafe or unlivable, as they did here, the resident will usually have a valid claim under the Warranty of Habitability. This is where the board in this case went seriously wrong. The board appears to have relied on its insurance carrier or adjuster for guidance on these legal questions rather than seeking proper legal counsel. It was a mistake to take the position that the Warranty of Habitability did not apply. Another incorrect assumption was arguing that its repair obligations were limited only to items that were “original” to the building. On top of that, it tried to condition Ms. Siegel’s ability to use her own contractor on her paying part of the co-op’s insurance deductible and the adjuster’s fee. In practical terms, these positions amounted to a refusal to make the necessary repairs. Because of that, Ms. Siegel was fully within her rights to reject the board’s proposal and proceed with repairs using her own contractor. Boards should take this as a clear warning. Repair obligations are not confined to a single “Repair” section of the proprietary lease. Most leases include additional provisions that address what happens when there is damage from events like leaks or flooding, and the Warranty of Habitability adds yet another layer of responsibility. These obligations work together, and they cannot be ignored or narrowly interpreted. The case ultimately reads like a textbook on the many legal problems that can arise from leaks and flooding, including evidence issues, lease interpretation, and how the Warranty of Habitability interacts with contractual repair obligations and established law. It stands as a strong cautionary example—and a reminder that boards need experienced legal advice when handling these situations.
Read full articleFirst published: Apr 2026
Fix My Condo!THE LESSON FOR BOARDS Newly constructed condominiums often have construction defects, and it is not uncommon for newly constituted condo boards to sue sponsors for contract and non-contract claims (such as fraud and fiduciary duty claims). It is equally common for the sponsor to move to dismiss those claims. In particular, sponsors and their representatives are often successful in dismissing fraud claims on the theory that those claims are really just breach of contract claims phrased in more “intimidating” language. The plaintiffs in this case were able to survive the motion to dismiss because they described specific building defects that the sponsor and its representatives were actually aware of and actively concealed or failed to address.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2026
A Seven-Year (and Counting) Wait to RenovateTAKEAWAY One common mistake many co-op boards make is believing they have unfettered control over shareholder alterations. That is not necessarily true. Boards must review the proprietary lease and follow its exact language. If the lease requires board consent but states that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld, the board must proceed carefully. In that situation, the board may not be protected by the business judgment rule. A court has the authority to review the board’s decision to determine whether the board acted reasonably based on the facts. If the court finds that the board acted unreasonably, it may determine that the board breached both the proprietary lease and its fiduciary duty. The consequences for a board that does not act properly can be serious.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2026
251 Days Over DeadlineTAKEAWAY Boards should regularly update their alteration agreements to effectively manage risks associated with owner renovations such as damage to common elements, alignment with updated declarations and by-laws, incorporation of modern technology, and liability management. In this case, the record reflects that the managing member of the limited liability company that owns the unit is a real estate developer and that the owner decided that it would be cheaper to pay daily license fees to the board than to incur the costs involved in negotiating a second alteration agreement for the second phase of the work. But the unit owner may not have been counting on being required to pay the board’s attorneys’ fees which may exceed $100,000. This may not be the last decision in this litigation as the owner may proceed to litigate its potentially valuable counterclaims.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2026
Bathroom BattleTHE 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.
Read full articleFirst 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: Feb 2026
Ironclad Clause, Ironclad WinTHE LESSON FOR BOARDS This case demonstrates how a well-crafted alteration agreement can protect a cooperative or condominium from legal liability and defense costs 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. 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 shareholders as additional insureds. Boards should have their alteration agreement forms reviewed by counsel, especially if such a review has not been recently conducted, to ensure that their alteration agreement contains appropriate protection for the building and the board and incorporates current developments in the law.
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 article