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
- Arbitration
- Assessment
- Attorney Fees
- Attorney-Client
- Authority to Sue
- Balcony/Terrace Rights
- Bike Lane
- 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
- 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: Jul 2022
Bd. Of Mgrs. Of 207-209 E. 120th St. Condo. V. DouganTAKEAWAY This case is a stark reminder to condominiums that many of their bylaws do not provide the right for the condominium to recover attorney’s fees when a unit owner defaults on a non-monetary obligation. Boards should look to amend these provisions to allow for legal fee recovery since there are many common situations where a condominium board is forced to bring action to enjoin a non-monetary default (unauthorized alterations, illegal use, unreasonable noise, and short-term rentals are just a few).
Read full articleFirst published: Jul 2022
295 Greenwich Court Condominium, LLC. V. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.This case illustrates why property damage claims usually go to trial if they’re not settled. The cause and scope of damage is a factual question. The plaintiff makes fact-based arguments to show how the other party caused the damage, and the defendant makes fact-based claims why they were not responsible for the damage. Unless the court deems that one party had no legal duty (or had an unbreakable legal duty) to the other, or the evidence on one side is overwhelming, the court will usually elect to have a jury (or the court) weigh the credibility of the competing claimants at a trial, rather than making a judgment based on depositions and documents alone. These cases can last for several years, draining the resources of a condominium or co-op and negatively affecting owners’ ability to sell or obtain mortgages in the interim. Even though many of these claims have a basis in fact, boards need to weigh the unintended consequences on the community before making them.
Read full articleFirst published: Jul 2022
Bd. Of Mgrs. Of 207-209 E. 120th St. Condo. V. DouganThis case is a stark reminder to condominiums that many of their bylaws do not provide the right for the condominium to recover attorney’s fees when a unit owner defaults on a non-monetary obligation. Boards should look to amend these provisions to allow for legal fee recovery since there are many common situations where a condominium board is forced to bring action to enjoin a non-monetary default (unauthorized alterations, illegal use, unreasonable noise, and short-term rentals are just a few).
Read full articleFirst published: Jun 2022
Yoonoak Kang V. Douglas Elliman Property ManagementManaging agents are often treated like pin cushions, and over the last several years their jobs have been made even harder with increasing city regulations on everything from caps on gas stoves to sorting out who is and isn’t eligible to receive tax abatements. Here, the managing agent did nothing wrong, but had to incur the time and aggravation to deal with a disgruntled owner whose records were unclear regarding the location of her primary residence.
Read full articleFirst published: Jun 2022
Tax Abatement TangleManaging agents are often treated like pin cushions, and over the last several years their jobs have been made even harder with increasing city regulations on everything from caps on gas stoves to sorting out who is and isn’t eligible to receive tax abatements. Here, the managing agent did nothing wrong, but had to incur the time and aggravation to deal with a disgruntled owner whose records were unclear regarding the location of her primary residence.
Read full articleFirst published: Jun 2022
A Dog Fight: Commercial Board vs Residential BoardOuch, two big lessons. One, do not ignore a lawsuit. Your first call upon learning of a lawsuit must be to an attorney, there will be time to try to settle it later. Two, don’t present the court with a story that can be refuted by your own emails. The court’s decision bristles with umbrage at the demonstrably misleading statements of the defendant, and the individual is lucky the court was satisfied with denying the motion. The court might have issued sanctions.
Read full articleFirst published: Jun 2022
Trump Village Section 4, Inc. v VilenskyAlthough the issues of whether a co-op can sue when a prospective buyer makes misrepresentations on a purchase application have not been finally resolved — and courts will continue to hear motions in such cases — it is interesting that the trial court and then an appellate court allowed a cooperative to bring a fraud action in this case. It is not uncommon for an applicant to claim he will move in and instead install an adult child in the apartment or use it as an investment by subleasing the apartment. In the past, boards have had little recourse. Certainly the cooperative might bring an action that the shareholder has violated the lease, but after curing, the violations could continue. Still, the possibility of winning damages in a fraud claim makes it imperative to follow such disputes to their legal conclusion.
Read full articleFirst published: Jun 2022
Roberts v. WVH Housing CorporationThese disputes happen all too often at cooperative and condominium elections. It would seem that the reason for this is the rush to close the meeting and announce the results the same evening. It is not uncommon for a board to insist that the vote be finalized the night of the meeting, no matter how late it gets. This is asking for trouble, since people often make mistakes. In many cases, if there was a simple comparison of the number of shareholders who signed in (either by proxy or in person) and the number of ballots, discrepancies might be discovered. In the lumberyard, it is common to hear “measure twice, cut once.” Perhaps an adage should be created just for elections at cooperatives and condominiums: Check twice, announce once.
Read full articleFirst published: May 2022
Court Dismisses Treasurer’s Defamation Claim Against Board PresidentWhile the statements made during a board meeting may be protected by the common-interest privilege to allow for the free flow of information between attendees, evidence of malice or reliance on knowingly false statements or any statements motivated by ill will or spite will not be protected and may expose the individual making such statements to liability. However, because members of co-op and condominium boards are subject to qualified privilege, it is difficult for them to be found liable for defamation. By the same token, it is difficult for them to obtain favorable results in connection with their own defamation claims. See Pusch v. Pullman, 2003 NY Slip Op 51759(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Nov. 5, 2003) (an action related to the famous Pullman case re board discretion in determining objectionable conduct, 40 W. 67th St. v. Pullman, 100 N.Y.2d 147 (2003)).
Read full articleFirst published: May 2022
Timing is EverythingIf you are dissatisfied with the action of the cooperative or the board, and you believe that the court should review it under Article 78, bring an action immediately, as the statute of limitation is quite short.
Read full article