Case Notes in

2025

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: Feb 2025
Condo Board's Negligence Leads to Liability in Sidewalk Tripping Hazard Case

THE LESSON FOR BOARDS This sidewalk tale, one of the most common types of legal action, serves as a reminder for co-op and condo board directors that under the New York City administrative code, property owners bear not only the responsibility for their buildings but also for the safety of the adjacent public sidewalks. This crucial duty cannot be delegated or brushed aside. Regular and thorough inspections, coupled with prompt repairs, are paramount in limiting the risk of personal injury claims. The story underscores another crucial point: No matter how obvious a hazardous condition might appear, it doesn't absolve property owners from their duty. The safety and well-being of pedestrians remain a top priority and cannot be compromised. COUNSEL For Maria Villeda: Siegel & Coonerty For the Board and Jamaica East Condominium: Gannon, Rosenfarb & Drossman

Read full article
First published: Jan 2025
Battling Goliath

TAKEAWAY The government is different from you and me. So it is not always easy to hold the government to legal standards that apply to individuals and corporations—but it can happen. Here, the appellate court found that the City’s efforts to move the Brooklyn property from one program to another could not stand. The tenants had participated for years in the TIL program, and presumably were working towards creating an HDFC cooperative for themselves. The City’s unilateral efforts to pull the property from that pathway were, for the time being, stopped. It remains to be seen if discovery or other evidence comes to light that renders the City’s actions warranted by law.

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