Case Notes by
William J. Geller, Braverman Greenspun
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
- Mediation
- 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
- Service of Process
- 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 2025
The Never-Ending SponsorTAKEAWAY The co-op found itself in trouble by mistakenly asserting that because the sponsor was “not an individual person which is a condition required to qualify as a Holder of Unsold Shares under the cooperative’s offering plan and . . . proprietary lease,” even though the offering plan did not actually require a holder to be an individual. It is unclear whether the co-op’s position was simply an error, or perhaps a calculated gamble to gain leverage over the sponsor and force it to sell apartments. Regardless, co-ops must be very careful in dealing with holders of unsold shares and understand that their proprietary leases likely provide for very different treatment than average tenant-shareholders. Attempting to charge a holder a flip tax will not only result in a loss in court, but will also require the board to pay the sponsor’s attorneys’ fees as well.
Read full articleFirst published: Feb 2024
You Don’t Have The Votes!TAKEAWAY This case is a reminder that co-ops and condominiums are ultimately political organizations controlled by the majority interest of their owners. Particularly in small buildings, where just a few owners can constitute a majority, the majority owners have a substantial ability to control the building’s leadership and operations. Unless there are protections for minority interests in the bylaws or other governing documents, minority owners may be frozen out by a coalition holding a majority. Additionally, lawyers can be focused on bringing claims based on procedural issues in providing notice of and conducting meetings. However, this case points out that if the procedural issues can be shown not to make a difference in the ultimate result, courts can properly ignore them.
Read full article