Case Notes by
Steven Wagner, Of Counsel, Adam Leitman Bailey
Category
- Access
- Alterations
- Appeals
- Arbitration
- Assessment
- Attorney Fees
- Attorney-Client
- Authority to Sue
- Balcony/Terrace Rights
- Bike Lane
- Board of Directors
- Board of Managers
- 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
- Damages
- Defamation
- Discovery
- Discrimination
- Due Diligence
- Easement
- Elections
- Estate
- Eviction
- Eviction/Termination
- Federal Courts Supplemental Jurisdiction
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fines
- Foreclosure
- Fraud
- Governance
- Ground Lease
- Gym
- Hoarding
- House Rules
- Housing Development Fund Corporation
- Indemnification
- Indemnification/Subrogation
- Injunction
- Inspection of Records
- 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
- RPAPL 881
- Sales
- Service of Process
- Sponsor
- Statute of Limitations
- Stock/Shares
- Stocks/Shares
- Sublets
- Succession Rights
- Tax
- Third-Party Liability
- Transfers
- Trespassing
- Trial Practice
- Veil Piercing
- Violations
- Warranty of Habitability
- Yellowstone Injunction
- Zoning
First published: Apr 2026
The High Cost of Ignoring HabitabilityTAKEAWAY Water leaks are a fact of life in buildings, and mold often follows. When those conditions make an apartment unsafe or unlivable, as they did here, the resident will usually have a valid claim under the Warranty of Habitability. This is where the board in this case went seriously wrong. The board appears to have relied on its insurance carrier or adjuster for guidance on these legal questions rather than seeking proper legal counsel. It was a mistake to take the position that the Warranty of Habitability did not apply. Another incorrect assumption was arguing that its repair obligations were limited only to items that were “original” to the building. On top of that, it tried to condition Ms. Siegel’s ability to use her own contractor on her paying part of the co-op’s insurance deductible and the adjuster’s fee. In practical terms, these positions amounted to a refusal to make the necessary repairs. Because of that, Ms. Siegel was fully within her rights to reject the board’s proposal and proceed with repairs using her own contractor. Boards should take this as a clear warning. Repair obligations are not confined to a single “Repair” section of the proprietary lease. Most leases include additional provisions that address what happens when there is damage from events like leaks or flooding, and the Warranty of Habitability adds yet another layer of responsibility. These obligations work together, and they cannot be ignored or narrowly interpreted. The case ultimately reads like a textbook on the many legal problems that can arise from leaks and flooding, including evidence issues, lease interpretation, and how the Warranty of Habitability interacts with contractual repair obligations and established law. It stands as a strong cautionary example—and a reminder that boards need experienced legal advice when handling these situations.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2026
A Seven-Year (and Counting) Wait to RenovateTAKEAWAY One common mistake many co-op boards make is believing they have unfettered control over shareholder alterations. That is not necessarily true. Boards must review the proprietary lease and follow its exact language. If the lease requires board consent but states that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld, the board must proceed carefully. In that situation, the board may not be protected by the business judgment rule. A court has the authority to review the board’s decision to determine whether the board acted reasonably based on the facts. If the court finds that the board acted unreasonably, it may determine that the board breached both the proprietary lease and its fiduciary duty. The consequences for a board that does not act properly can be serious.
Read full articleFirst published: Oct 2025
No Unit — No Seat — No CaseTAKEAWAY Allegations of bad faith or breach of fiduciary duty require real evidence, not just dissatisfaction with a board’s actions. Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with decisions made within a board’s authority and in good faith, and the business judgment rule protects boards from having their decisions second-guessed so long as those decisions are rational, honest and serve a legitimate purpose for the building. This case underscores that a board’s careful adherence to its governing documents - coupled with professional advice from attorneys or other experts - provides a strong defense against legal challenges. For unit owners considering litigation, it’s important to remember that courts will defer to a board’s discretion unless there is proof of fraud, self-dealing, or other misconduct. And in this case Zihenni and his LLC had had no proof that the board acted in bad faith or beyond its authority.
Read full article