Case Notes by
Richard Siegler, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
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: Apr 2004
Babeli v. East 13th Street Tenant Corp.Once a shareholder in a co-op embarks upon an apartment alteration with co-op approval, it is very difficult to stop such alteration without a clear and compelling reason as long as the work is proceeding as authorized. In other words, once an apartment alteration is approved, a co-op does not have the option of changing its mind and stopping the work.
Read full articleFirst published: Apr 2004
Robert Fleisig v. 75 East End Owners Inc.This is one of a long line of co-op cases establishing the principle that where there are building repairs to be done by the co-op, the co-op determines the scope of such repairs, including the nature and extent, even if an affected shareholder prefers a different methodology or aesthetic.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2004
178 E. 80th St. Owners, Inc. v. JenkinsThe result here was most unusual. In American jurisprudence, each party normally bears its own legal expenses. Occasionally, by contract, this rule can be varied so that either one party or another bears the expenses of both parties. Often, the proprietary lease so provides. In this case, the lease was not the basis. Rather, it was the combination of the federal court venue and the shareholder's contempt of court, a unique situation.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2004
Peck v. Lily LodgeThe facts of this case led the court to conclude that the defendant was operating a bed-and-breakfast establishment in a co-op, which is inimical to the underlying purpose of a co-op enterprise. Transient occupancy involves a commercial enterprise, which has no place in a building designed to provide housing for its shareholders. The courts invariably frown upon such operations and not even the so-called roommate law could be invoked to help the tenant's position.
Read full articleFirst published: Jan 2004
Trepel v. DiopBy Richard Siegler, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan This case reveals that a court will enforce a shareholder’s agreement given to induce a co-op to permit the transfer of shares and a proprietary lease to that person which in some manner restricts the use or occupancy of the apartment. Here, the court permitted only such access as was needed to sell the apartment, but without providing a key that would have afforded unlimited access to the apartment by the shareholder.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2003
Brodsky v. Board of Managers of Dag Hammarskjold Tower CondominiumWhile notarized proxies may be required in some instances, this is rarely done. This case makes clear that if it is to be done it should be done by amendment of the governing documents – usually the bylaws, which in the case of many co-ops and most condominiums requires a vote of the owners. What is less certain is the court’s decision to require a new election for the six incumbent board of managers. The court did not have to decide this issue, but was obviously troubled by the failure to elect any of these managers at meetings because there was never a quorum of unit-owners present.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2003
2682 Kingsbridge Associates, LLC v. MartinezWhile this case involved a rental building, the result is equally applicable to a co-op, where general principles of landlord/tenant law are applicable. The issue is one of exclusive control by the tenant. Without that, the tenant’s rights to a satellite TV dish are restricted. The same principle should apply in the condominium building if the satellite dish is placed on a common element, other than a limited common element such as a terrace or balcony, where the unit-owner has the right of exclusive use.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2003
Simon v. 160 West End Avenue Corp.Here, the plaintiff was without a remedy. Not only was the board’s action within its discretion, but also the statute of limitations for defamation had run. In addition, the purchasers failed to demonstrate that under applicable law they were members of a protected class which would shift to the co-op the burden of proof to justify the board’s rejection.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2003
Board of Managers, Kingsley Condominium v. Villinvestment A.V.V.By Richard Siegler, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Increasingly, cases involving a condominium board’s right of first refusal are being reported. As more boards decide to exercise such rights, they are learning the pitfalls of not following precisely the procedures to accomplish this result. Rights of first refusal are limited restraints on alienation permitted by virtually all states. As such, they are always strictly construed and the rule is still caveat emptor!
Read full articleFirst published: Oct 2003
Michaelson v. AlboraThe case illustrates the fiduciary duty of board members that is owed to both co-op shareholders and condo unit-owners when it comes to business dealings. A board cannot permit some unit-owners to get a "better" deal than others. If this happens, legal recourse is available, swift and unsympathetic.
Read full article