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
- 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
- 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: Sep 2005
Sit v. SchnapsThis case reaffirms established co-op law that a purchaser of an apartment that is approved subject to compliance with certain conditions may cancel the purchase agreement and receive a full refund of the contract deposit if those conditions are not met. This is a harsh and sometimes unexpected dilemma for a co-op seller who frequently has waited for many weeks to learn if a co-op board approves his purchaser. It suggests that a seller has a strong interest in seeing that his purchaser is well-qualified to acquire the apartment and likely to be approved by the board. This issue should be considered before a seller signs a sale contract.
Read full articleFirst published: Sep 2005
Litwack v. Plaza Realty InvestorsThe coincidence of the decisions in the two cases with different results led to reconsideration of the lower court case which was at variance with the one decided by the appellate division. As a result, the decisions were reconciled and the Litwack action was dismissed based on Beck. Despite this reconciliation, which provides that actual knowledge or notice of a mold condition itself is required to impose liability on a landlord, a landlord’s liability for mold conditions remains an emerging legal issue and further decisions can be expected. In the interim, steps can be taken by co-op and condo managers and boards to control both damage and liability. Preventive maintenance and prompt and appropriate remediation, using experienced specialists where indicated, are key. Identifying and repairing the source of water leaks will prevent recurrence
Read full articleFirst published: Jul 2005
Madison Medical Building v. Properties & Equities International Ltd.It is obvious that the condominium board here did not want a Subway restaurant in the building. The board raised all types of objections to bar the restaurant's opening - none of which the court found to have merit. There was no danger to the building or its occupants. The ultimate remedy for the board would have been to exercise its right of first refusal to lease the premises intended for Subway. Of course, that would have required some risk and expenditure for the board that it was seeking to avoid. With the cost of litigation factored in, it might have been smarter for the board to have exercised the right of first refusal in the first place.
Read full articleFirst published: Jun 2005
Beck v. J.J.A. Holding Corp.This case suggests that a landlord must have actual knowledge and an opportunity to cure a mold condition before it has liability to a tenant claiming illness from mold. As this is still an emerging legal issue, further cases on the extent of a landlord’s liability for a mold condition can be expected.
Read full articleFirst published: Jun 2005
Litwack v. Plaza Realty InvestorsThe court here refused to dismiss the mold illness claim against the landlord before further evidence was introduced on the causal connection between the mold condition and the illness. The issue was one of the landlord’s knowledge of the mold condition. The court was not prepared to dismiss the tenant’s claim because the court believed that persistent water leaks might result in a landlord’s having constructive notice of a mold condition.
Read full articleFirst published: May 2005
Arnold v. No 24 Gramercy Park Inc.The co-op had granted Arnold permission to alter his apartment and install a central air conditioning system. When the co-op board members had second thoughts about this installation, they acted as if the permission was conditional and revocable despite any evidence that this was the case. Levandusky was no defense for the board’s breach of contract liability. This was not a case where the business judgment rule could protect the board’s efforts to alter the consent. Perhaps most significantly, the decision here holds that the shareholder may recover his legal fees from the co-op because of a statutory provision in the Real Property Law for the benefit of tenants. This should give other co-op boards pause before trying to alter binding contracts with shareholders.
Read full articleFirst published: Apr 2005
Matter of Contello Towers Corporation v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and DevelopmentThis case is one of many faced regularly by both co-op and condo boards each year in which an occupant seeks to justify keeping a pet where pets are prohibited. Since these house rules are generally permissible with some exceptions for pets protected under the New York City Pet Waiver Law (because of a continuous known presence for more than 90 days), most challenges to such rules fail. Recently, challenges have relied on disabilities or hardships to trump the prohibitions. Although a trained seeing-eye dog for a blind person would invariably be permitted under the ADA, mental depression or distress is more difficult to measure. Here, the degree of distress did not rise to a level sufficient to override the building-wide prohibition.
Read full articleFirst published: Jan 2005
Chrysikopoulos v. Soho Greene Associates LLCAs discussed above, under the clear and unambiguous terms of the purchase agreement and the offering plan, the court concluded that the sponsor was obligated to renovate the building and plaintiff’s unit, and defendants had failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to their liability under these agreements. A trial was necessary, however, to determine the nature and extent of damages, specifically the extent to which the sponsor failed to comply with its obligations to renovate the building and plaintiff’s unit under the terms of the offering plan and the purchase agreement.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2004
Board of Managers of Lido Beach Towers Condominium v. GamielThe motion court failed to actually decide both the immunity of the board and whether the “pet carry” rule discriminated against a unit-owner with a medical necessity. It required a trial to ascertain the facts giving rise to each issue. However, from the views expressed by the court, it seems likely that the board’s immunity will be upheld and that an exception to the rule will be granted if a discriminatory motive on the board’s part can be shown.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2004
Robinson v Mansfield Gardens Inc.Most co-op shareholders do not pay late fees until there is a resolution of the non-payment issue which invariably gave rise to the late fees. If, however, a shareholder decides to pay late fees before there is a resolution of the arrears issue, the payment should be marked “paid under protest.” This reservation should preserve the shareholder’s claim to recover such fees when there is a settlement.
Read full article