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.
This is another in a long line of cases seeking to construe the nature of co-op ownership. In considering the dual nature of co-op ownership, a mixture of personal and real property, the court here concluded, for purposes of determining how a co-op was treated in a statutory homestead exemption from a legal attachment situation, that it was to be treated as real property. The reason: co-op shares represented the right to occupy and reside in real property. Despite this conclusion, the court refused to afford any relief to the petitioners on the ground that they had selected the wrong forum, an error that could be corrected by another lawsuit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.Read full article
The subject of pets continues to be a troublesome one for the courts. This lengthy decision should help to resolve some of the uncertainty that has prevailed, although it applies only to pets in Manhattan and the Bronx. The last word on this subject, of course, lies with the court of appeals, which may be needed to resolve disputes between the two appellate divisions, which govern New York City. In any event, the result of this case is to make it more difficult for a co-op to enforce no-pet rules. Indeed, the case is a warning to co-ops that they must act promptly (within 90 days) and by appropriate legal action to challenge an unauthorized pet.Read full article
This case is significant for two reasons. First, it clarifies the definition of a holder of unsold shares and expands it beyond that normally found in the typical proprietary lease to include the requirements imposed upon a holder of unsold shares by the New York State Department of Law. This may serve to reduce the number of persons claiming to be holders of unsold shares. It also reaffirms that bed and breakfast transient occupancies are not acceptable in a residential co-op since they constitute a commercial business.Read full article
Although this case did not reach a final determination, the court allowed a claim for age discrimination to proceed against a co-op. The case illustrates that age discrimination, which is protected by both city and state laws, if proven, is just as invidious as racial, religious, or sexual discrimination. Here, the plaintiff still had to convince either a judge or a jury that the two rejections were based on age discrimination.Read full article
This case left the board with a cause of action against the sponsor of the condominium plan for the building. However, the sponsor might be without assets or insolvent. Even if the sponsor could be induced to instigate a legal proceeding to place ultimate liability on the various designers and contractors, this might still result in substantial delays for the board to press its claim.Read full article