View all case notes
Case Notes by

Scott Pashman, Cozen O’Connor

Category
Author
Select Year
First published: Feb 2025
The Price of Control: A Parc Vendome Tale

TAKEAWAY Board members do not expect to incur personal liability for their service. This case is an extreme example showing that it can happen where a board has been found to have deliberately failed to follow the governing documents and contractual requirements with improper motives. The court’s ruling would seem to preclude the board members from receiving indemnification from the condominium under the bylaws, and might be excluded from coverage under the applicable directors and officers insurance policy. In the underlying suit, the commercial unit owner is seeking more than $11.5 million of damages. If upheld on appeal, the individual board members will be on the hook for the eventual award of damages and for the fees and costs of that litigation if not covered by insurance.

Read full article
First published: Jan 2025
Alteration Agreement To The Rescue

TAKEAWAY This case demonstrates how a well-crafted alteration agreement can protect a cooperative or condominium from legal liability and costs of defense 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. Where was the 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 the shareholders as additional insureds. Unfortunately, property manager Douglas Elliman claimed – suspiciously, according to Mandracchia – that the certificates were lost and could not be located. In any event, boards should have their alteration agreement forms reviewed by counsel, especially if such a review has not been conducted recently, to ensure that the alteration agreement contains appropriate protection for the building and the board and incorporates current developments in the law.

Read full article
First published: Aug 2024
Rules for Thee But Not for Me

TAKEAWAY: While a jury or judge will decide if there was unlawful racial discrimination here, this case highlights the complications that may arise when a first-floor cooperative or condominium unit, previously utilized as a doctor’s office, becomes vacant. Substantial renovations may be necessary to convert a medical office back to residential use, and such renovations would likely necessitate an amendment to the building’s certificate of occupancy. In the course of that process, the NYC Department of Buildings may inspect the entire building, and any resulting violations or required updates will result in extra costs to all unit owners or shareholders. In this case, however, the board’s decision to deny a medical office lease to an otherwise qualified African-American applicant while simultaneously allowing two other medical offices to operate in similar units exposed the condominium and the board to liability for unlawful racial discrimination.

Read full article
First published: Jun 2023
Board of Managers of the Broad Exchange Building Condominium v. Nicole Lambert

It is important that boards respond promptly to complaints from unit-owners to prevent nuisance situations from spiraling out of control and to avoid being sued by unit-owners for failure to enforce the rules. In this case, the board quickly mustered a barrage of complaints from unit-owners and neighbors from the adjacent building, including photos and videos documenting the offending conduct. But without seeking a temporary restraining order at the outset, the offending conduct was allowed to carry on from June 2022 until the issuance of the preliminary injunction in March 2023. Moreover, the court did not order that Ms. Lambert remove any dogs from her unit. Because the parties will now proceed to litigate the validity of Ms. Lambert’s discrimination claims, the dogs may remain in place for a long time before their final status is resolved. But if the board ultimately prevails on its claims that Ms. Lambert has violated the bylaws and house rules, it may be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees from Ms. Lambert. Unit-owners who own noisy or vicious pets often argue that they are service animals or emotional support animals, and boards will typically need to consult with counsel to ascertain whether the applicable requirements have been met to avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination law.

Read full article
First published: May 2023
Four-legged Identity Crisis

It is important that boards respond promptly to complaints from unit owners to prevent nuisance situations from spiraling out of control and to avoid being sued by unit owners for failure to enforce the rules. In this case, the board quickly mustered a barrage of complaints from unit owners and neighbors from the adjacent building, including photos and videos documenting the offending conduct. But without seeking a temporary restraining order at the outset, the offending conduct was allowed to carry on from June 2022 until the issuance of the preliminary injunction in March 2023. Moreover, the court did not order that Ms. Lambert remove any dogs from her unit. Because the parties will now proceed to litigate the validity of Ms. Lambert’s discrimination claims, the dogs may remain in place for a long time before their final status is resolved. But if the board ultimately prevails on its claims that Ms. Lambert has violated the by-laws and house rules, it may be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees from Ms. Lambert. Unit owners who own noisy or vicious pets often argue that they are service animals or emotional support animals, and boards will typically need to consult with counsel to ascertain whether the applicable requirements have been met to avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination law.

Read full article
First published: Aug 2022
Slow Death of a Sweetheart Lease

This case is a cautionary tale. Individuals who serve as members of a cooperative board owe a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. The record in this case shows that the defendant, Siwana Green, together with at least one relative who also served on the board until they were voted out in 2018, succeeded at enriching themselves while failing to ensure that the co-op paid the City of New York more than $1 million for real estate taxes and water charges, resulting in a foreclosure proceeding and leaving the building in dire financial straits.

Read full article
First published: Aug 2022
67-69 St. Nicholas Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. V. Green

TAKEAWAY This case is a cautionary tale. Individuals who serve as members of a cooperative board owe a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the corporation. The record in this case shows that the defendant, Siwana Green, together with at least one relative who also served on the board until they were voted out in 2018, succeeded at enriching themselves while failing to ensure that the co-op paid the City of New York more than $1 million for real estate taxes and water charges, resulting in a foreclosure proceeding and leaving the building in dire financial straits.

Read full article

© 2022 The Carol Group, Ltd. All rights reserved