Posts by Team Colbert Law

For New York cooperative boards and managing agents, executing a “so-ordered” stipulation of settlement in open court feels like crossing the finish line of a grueling litigation marathon. The common assumption is that once a judge signs off on a settlement resolving a shareholder’s complaints about repairs or building conditions, the dispute is permanently laid to rest.

However, a recent decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, underscores that a stipulation is not always the end of the story. In Fiondella v. 345 W. 70th Tenants Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 01595, 247 A.D.3d 565), the court provided a masterclass on the procedural boundaries of post-settlement disputes, the strict standards of unconscionability, and how a co-op can accidentally leave the door open for follow-on litigation.

Here is a summary of the Fiondella case and the critical, practical insights it offers for New York co-op boards and their management teams.

The Case: Fiondella v. 345 West 70th Tenants Corp.

The Background and Settlement

The plaintiff, Paul Fiondella, brought an action against his co-op board in 2019 regarding structural defects and repair failures in his apartment. In January 2020, the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement. The deal was straightforward on its face: the cooperative agreed to perform specific structural repairs, and Fiondella agreed to provide a formal release of claims upon completion. Fiondella was represented by legal counsel throughout these negotiations.

The Fallout and New Claims

Predictably, the peace did not last. Fiondella later moved to restore the original 2019 action and vacate the January 2020 stipulation. He claimed that the co-op breached the agreement by failing to resolve outstanding housing violations by late 2021. Furthermore, he claimed that the co-op’s ongoing failure to execute proper repairs forced him to sell his apartment in April 2022 at a loss. Fiondella tried to argue that the stipulation itself was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, alleging he was coerced into it because the board had threatened to terminate his proprietary lease.

The Supreme Court denied his motion to vacate the stipulation, and the First Department unanimously affirmed.

Key Legal Takeaways from the First Department

1. Post-Stipulation Claims Belong in a New Action

The core procedural ruling in Fiondella centers on General Obligations Law § 15-501(3). While a party can sometimes restore an action if an executory accord (like a settlement stipulation) is breached, the First Department clarified that because Fiondella’s new claims rested on “new facts that were not previously pleaded” in the 2019 lawsuit—specifically, damages for an apartment sale that happened years later and post-stipulation habitability issues—vacatur was improper.

Instead, the court noted that Fiondella was properly granted leave to bring his unresolved, post-stipulation claims in a completely new lawsuit.

2. High Bar for Unconscionability in So-Ordered Stipulations

Fiondella’s attempt to blow up the settlement by claiming “coercion” and “one-sidedness” failed miserably. The court reinforced that under New York law, a stipulation will not be disturbed absent fraud, collusion, mistake, or duress.

The court soundly rejected the unconscionability argument for two reasons:

• Procedural: Fiondella was represented by counsel at all times, and the agreement was vetted and so-ordered by a judge.
• Substantive: The terms actually favored Fiondella because they legally compelled the co-op to perform major structural repairs it had previously refused to do. A threat to terminate a lease through proper legal channels does not equal lack of meaningful choice.

3. Open Violations Keep the Door Open to Trial

The co-op didn’t escape completely unscathed. The board had brought a counterclaim against Fiondella for breaching the stipulation because he refused to give them the agreed-upon release. Fiondella tried to dismiss this counterclaim, pointing out that documentary evidence proved the co-op still had open building violations of record as of December 2021.

The co-op argued that Fiondella’s ultimate purchaser had waived or accepted those conditions. The First Department ruled that this factual dispute—whether the violations were actually cured or legally waived—must be decided on the merits at trial. Because the violations remained open on paper, the co-op could not summarily prove it was entitled to the release.

Practical Insights for Co-op Boards and Managing Agents

The Fiondella decision serves as a guide for how co-op boards might approach litigation exits and ongoing building maintenance.

Treat Stipulations as Risk-Management Tools, Not Just Ways Out of Court

A stipulation is a binding contract. Because Fiondella highlights that a shareholder can simply file a new lawsuit based on post-stipulation conduct, boards must draft agreements with an eye toward preventing future litigation.

• Define Scope and Benchmarks: When agreeing to repairs, do not just write “Board will fix the structural issues.” Defining the precise scope, access protocols, third-party vendor timelines, and objective completion benchmarks would be helpful. This may reduce the chance a shareholder can allege “new facts” regarding a failure to perform.

The Trap of Open HPD/Building Violations

In New York, Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) or other building violations are treated as prima facie evidence of hazardous conditions that threaten life, health, or safety.

• As seen in this litigation web, as long as violations remain open of record, they serve as powerful evidentiary anchors for a shareholder.
• Co-op managers should track remediation steps and actively secure formal dismissals or re-inspection completions from the city. Merely completing the physical repair is not enough; clearing the administrative record to secure your legal release is a good idea.

The Inherent Bounds of the Business Judgment Rule

Co-op boards generally enjoy immense protection under the Business Judgment Rule for maintenance prioritization and corporate decision-making. However, this deference has a hard ceiling when it collides with Real Property Law § 235-b (the Implied Warranty of Habitability).

• A shareholder’s obligation to pay maintenance is legally tied to the co-op’s duty to maintain habitable conditions, and statutory habitability rights cannot be waived or contracted away in a settlement.
• Boards should document their good-faith efforts (vendor logs, access requests sent to shareholders, engineering reports). This paper trail ensures that if a follow-on lawsuit is filed, the board can decisively trigger Business Judgment protection.

Fiondella v. 345 W. 70th Tenants Corp. reminds us that defeating a motion to vacate a settlement is a hollow victory if the board’s post-settlement performance invites a brand-new lawsuit. To achieve true finality, co-op boards and managing agents should ensure that stipulations are meticulously drafted, repair obligations are executed, and building violations are cleared from city records.

Here is the Court’s decision.

A recent decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, underscores a significant exposure point for New York condominium boards, property management companies, and their legal counsel. In Etkin v. Sherwood Residential Mgt. LLC, the court clarified how unit owners can bypass traditional standing limitations to assert derivative breach of contract actions against management entities and boards. This ruling directly impacts all condominiums in Manhattan and the Bronx and serves as highly persuasive authority for courts throughout the rest of New York State.

For years, many boards and property managers operated under the assumption that individual unit owners faced an uphill battle in suing over structural issues outside their specific interior airspaces. Etkin challenges that complacency, establishing that standard condominium governing language defining balconies as “Residential Limited Common Elements” can hand unit owners the keys to derivative standing, potentially exposing boards and management companies to costly, multi-year litigation over construction and maintenance defects.

The Dispute: Leaks, Smoke, and Standing

The plaintiff, William Etkin, purchased Unit 7A at The 500 West 21st Street Condominium in 2015. Shortly thereafter, construction defects to the penthouse balcony directly above (Penthouse A) allegedly caused ongoing water leaks and damage to Etkin’s balcony below. Etkin also alleged that unspecified construction defects allowed fireplace smoke from adjacent units to infiltrate his apartment, creating toxic conditions. He filed extensive complaints with the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), resulting in multiple official building violations.

When the Board of Managers and its property management company failed to remediate the water and smoke issues to his satisfaction, Etkin filed suit. He asserted individual claims as well as derivative breach of contract claims on behalf of the condominium and its unit owners, alleging that the defendants breached their contractual maintenance obligations under the building’s governing documents.

The Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), initially granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s key claims, ruling that the unit owner lacked standing to bring a derivative breach of contract claim regarding common elements. However, on appeal, the First Department modified the order, systematically dismantling this standing defense and reviving the contractual claims.

Key Legal Takeaways from the First Department’s Ruling

1. “Limited Common Elements” Grant Derivative Standing

The core defense relied upon by the defendants was that because the balconies were designated for the exclusive use of specific unit owners, the plaintiff lacked standing to sue derivatively over their repair. The First Department rejected this argument entirely. The court noted that the building’s governing documents explicitly defined the balconies as “Residential Limited Common Elements” owned by the condominium itself, not by the individual unit owners.

Because ownership rested with the condominium association, the First Department relied on the controlling precedent in Davis v. Prestige Mgt. Inc. to hold that a unit owner appropriately brings a derivative claim on behalf of the condominium and all its unit owners for defects in such elements. This significantly widens the door for unit owners to initiate derivative litigations over balconies, terraces, patios, or yards that may carry “limited common element” status.

2. Regulatory Violations Form a Factual Basis to Defeat Summary Judgment

The court revived the unit owner’s first and third causes of action (derivative breach of contract against both the property manager and the board) by pointing to concrete evidence. The plaintiff successfully raised triable issues of fact by submitting photographs, deposition testimony, expert reports, and crucially, open violations issued by the DOB and HPD. The court noted that these regulatory notices provided sufficient baseline evidence to question whether the management company and board fulfilled their contractual maintenance and repair duties, thereby blocking the defendants’ path to an early summary dismissal.

The Danger of Open Violations: In Etkin, the plaintiff successfully moved to renew and reconsider previous dismissals by presenting brand-new DOB violations issued during the litigation. The court ruled that these new violations were highly “pertinent” to the ongoing water damage claims, legally justifying a reversal of summary judgment and completely insulating the plaintiff from the defendants’ cross-motion for frivolous litigation sanctions.

3. Evidentiary Standards: Contractual Duty vs. Speculation

Conversely, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s smoke-infiltration derivative claims. While the plaintiff proved that a smoke issue physically existed (using personal air monitoring kits), he failed to provide non-speculative evidence demonstrating that the smoke entry was caused by a specific breach of a contractual maintenance or repair obligation by the board or management. This clarifies that while standing may be easily established via governing documents, plaintiffs must still tie the defect to a specific contractual failure to survive summary judgment.

4. Duplicative Nuisance Claims Remain Subject to Dismissal

The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s individual private nuisance claim against the Board. Because the facts undergirding the nuisance claim stemmed entirely from the Board’s alleged failure to perform “extraordinary” maintenance as dictated by the governing documents, the claim was deemed completely duplicative of the breach of contract claims. Furthermore, the court noted that individual unit owners lack standing to bring private nuisance claims for injuries caused by truly common elements, such as a shared HVAC system.

Risk Mitigation Strategies for Condominium Boards and Manage

The Etkin decision changes the risk profile for property management and community association boards across New York. To prevent unit owners from exploiting this derivative pathway, management teams and boards should consider the following:

• Audit Governing Document Definitions: Map out exactly what elements are defined as “Limited Common Elements” (balconies, structural columns, localized pipes). Clearly delineate where individual unit owner maintenance obligations end and association/board repair obligations begin and end.
• Differentiate Repair Classes: Establish operational protocols to explicitly document whether balcony or structural maintenance work is classified as “ordinary” or “extraordinary” under the building’s by-laws. The Etkin court highlighted this distinction as a critical factual issue that determines liability boundaries.
• Proactively Clear DOB/HPD Violations: Do not let municipal agency complaints linger. Because the First Department treated open DOB and HPD violations as prima facie evidence of a potential contractual breach, clearing these violations from the public record is a legal necessity to neutralize future lawsuits.
• Document Engineering & Water-Membrane Audits: Given that a core triable issue in Etkin centered on whether a waterproof membrane was intact on a penthouse balcony, boards may want to order formal architectural or engineering inspections of appurtenant exterior limited common elements and maintain comprehensive, court-ready records.
• Enforce Clear Recourse Pathways: If a unit owner complains of issues potentially stemming from equipment or alterations within another unit (such as flues, fireplaces, or localized HVAC alterations), consider invoking governing provisions that mandate owner-vs-owner responsibility, shifting the legal crosshairs away from the Board and Management.

The First Department’s decision in Etkin v. Sherwood Residential Mgt. LLC serves as a stark reminder that labels matter. Defining areas like balconies as “Limited Common Elements” grants exclusive use to residents but keeps ownership—and the corresponding structural legal liability—firmly in the hands of the condominium. Maintenance responsibility though may still be required of owners and thus, remain their responsibility depending on what your condo’s governing documents provide. When boards and management companies fail to protectively monitor these elements or allow municipal violations to accumulate, they provide disgruntled unit owners with a formidable legal mechanism to sue derivatively on behalf of the corporation.

Here is the First Department’s decision.

Reflections on 10MSW17D LLC v. Bd. of Managers of 10 Madison Square W.

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, offers a roadmap for condominium boards and management teams navigating the complexities of amenity usage and resident classification. The case, 10MSW17D LLC v. Bd. of Managers of 10 Madison Square W., underscores the strength of the Business Judgment Rule when boards act within their authority to ensure the safety and comfort of their community.

---

The Dispute: Amenities and LLC Ownership

The conflict began when a residential unit owner, organized as an LLC, challenged a new “house rule” enacted by the Board of Managers. This “Amended Amenity Rule” established tiered access to the fitness center and pilates studio based on residency status:

• Full-Time Residents: Defined as those domiciled within the condominium, granted full access.
• Daytime Visitors: Required to be accompanied by a full-time resident at all times.
• Short-term Guests: Permitted unaccompanied use of public spaces but restricted from reserving private rooms.

The plaintiff, an LLC whose member utilized the amenities as a non-resident, alleged the rule was a retaliatory “ban” and an illegal amendment to the by-laws.

The Court’s Ruling

Justice Leslie A. Stroth dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding that the Board acted within its granted powers. The court highlighted several key factors:

• Authority to Regulate: The by-laws explicitly empowered the Board to “modify, amend or add to Rules and Regulations” regarding the operation and upkeep of common elements.
• Legitimate Purpose: The Board’s stated intent—ensuring safety, reducing “wear and tear,” and maintaining a “private space”—constituted a legitimate interest of the condominium.
• Business Judgment Rule: Because the Board acted in good faith and within its authority, the court declined to substitute its own judgment for the Board’s.

---

Lessons for Governance and Management

While every building is unique, with different governing documents, the following suggestions derived from this case may help boards and management teams refine their governance strategies:

1. Audit Your Rule-Making Authority

The Board’s success in this case rested on the specific language of their governing documents. Periodically review by-laws to ensure they provide broad enough “house rule” authority to manage common areas without requiring a full by-law amendment for every operational change.

2. Articulate a “Neutral” Rationale

The court noted that the Board’s emails specifically cited “safety,” “comfort,” and “wear and tear”. When introducing restrictive rules, boards might focus communications on the collective welfare of the building rather than individual disputes, as courts often look for a rational relationship to the “welfare of the condominium”.

3. Address LLC and Trust Ownership Proactively

This case highlights the friction that can arise when LLC members expect full resident privileges without being domiciled on-site. Management might consider clarifying how “occupancy” and “residency” are defined for units owned by entities. As the court noted, LLC ownership does not “implicitly imbue every member… with a right to use the common elements without limitation regardless of residency”.

4. Consistency is a Shield

The plaintiff’s claim of “malicious” targeting failed because the rule applied uniformly to all similarly situated non-resident owners. Ensuring that new regulations are applied across-the-board, rather than appearing to target a single “troublesome” unit owner, may help protect the board from claims of self-dealing or bad faith.

The 10 Madison Square West decision reaffirms that New York courts generally respect the autonomy of condominium boards to manage their facilities, provided they stay within the boundaries of their governing documents. For management, the case serves as a reminder that clear, purpose-driven communication remains the best first line of defense in community governance.

Here is the Court’s decision:

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, serves as a stark reminder for condominium boards and management companies: when it comes to collecting unpaid common charges, time is literally money.

In Board of Mgrs. of Grandview Condominiums v. Medina, 245 A.D.3d 878 (2026), the court reaffirmed a board’s power to enforce liens, but also set a strict boundary on how far back those collections can go.

---

The Power to Enforce: Real Property Law §§ 339-z and 339-aa

The court’s decision highlights the robust statutory framework available to New York condominium boards. Under Real Property Law § 339-z, a board of managers holds a lien on each unit for unpaid common charges. This lien can be foreclosed upon in a manner similar to a real estate mortgage under Real Property Law § 339-aa.

In the Medina case, the Board successfully established its authority by providing:

• Governing Documents: The bylaws and the owner’s deed, which mandated the payment of charges.
• Detailed Records: An affidavit from the Board president and payment records showing unpaid dues from 2005 through 2020.
• Recorded Liens: A supplemental lien recorded in 2019.

While the Board proved the “validity of its authority” to impose and collect these charges, they hit a significant legal wall regarding the timeline.

---

The Six-Year Trap: CPLR 213(2)

The critical takeaway for management companies is the application of the six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(2). The court ruled that:

1. Separate Causes of Action: A new “cause of action” accrues for each individual monthly charge as it becomes due.
2. The Cut-off Date: Because the Board did not commence the action until July 18, 2019, they were only entitled to recover charges that accrued on or after July 18, 2013.

Consequently, the Board was unable to recover any charges from the period between 2005 and mid-2013. Years of arrears were essentially rendered uncollectible because the Board waited too long to file its lawsuit.

---

Lessons for Boards and Management

The Medina case is a cautionary tale. While the court upheld the Board’s right to pursue the recent debt, the loss of eight years of previous charges represents a significant financial blow to the condominium’s common funds.

Waiting for a “better time” to sue a delinquent owner can result in a permanent forfeiture of the association’s funds. As the Second Department has made clear, the clock is always ticking.

Here is the Court’s decision:

Boards and managers of condominiums, cooperatives, and homeowners associations (HOAs) in New York are increasingly confronted with requests from neighboring owners and developers for temporary access to building exteriors, roofs, yards, setbacks, and other common elements to perform construction, repairs, or protective work.. When access is necessary and consent is withheld, the requesting party may seek a court-ordered license under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 881. The decision in Matter of Bergen St Equity LLC v 259 Wyckoff Assoc. LLC, 2026 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2552 (2026) is a useful reminder that, in RPAPL § 881 practice, reimbursement of the adjoining owner’s reasonable professional fees is not a “nice-to-have”-it is frequently treated as a central term of a fair license.

Key Points of the Supreme Court, Kings County Decision

The Court in Matter of Bergen St Equity LLC v 259 Wyckoff Assoc. LLC, 2026 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2552 (2026) addressed the issue of professional fees, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, in the context of a proceeding under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 881. The court ordered the Petitioner to pay the Respondent’s professional fees as a condition for encroaching on the property. This decision underscores the equitable principles of RPAPL § 881, ensuring that property owners are not unfairly burdened by costs arising from access granted to developers.

The recent amendment to RPAPL § 881 provides that the Court is authorized to “obligate the licensee to reimburse the adjoining owner for reasonable fees incurred in connection with the review of relevant documents for the installation, maintenance, inspection, repair, replacement or removal of devices, structures, materials or equipment on the adjoining property”.

1. Award of Professional Fees:
   The court determined that the professional fees incurred by the Respondent, totaling $67,750.00, were reasonable and should be paid by the Petitioner as a condition for encroaching on the Respondent’s property. These fees included attorneys’ fees and architect’s fees, with hourly rates ranging from $550 to $800 for attorneys and $475 for the architect. The court found these rates to be within the prevailing market rates for similar services in New York and noted that the Petitioner failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
   
2. Equitable Principles Under RPAPL § 881:
   The court emphasized that RPAPL § 881 grants broad discretion to award professional fees to respondents compelled to grant access to their property. The underlying equitable principle is that a property owner who does not seek or benefit from the intrusion should not bear the associated costs. The fees awarded were deemed compensable as they were incurred to protect the Respondent’s property and ensure that access was properly conditioned.
   
3. Petitioner’s Allegations of Bad Faith:
   The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s attorneys acted in bad faith by unnecessarily prolonging the dispute and inflating fees. However, the court found no evidence to support these claims. Instead, it concluded that the fees reflected legitimate efforts to protect the Respondent’s property interests.
   

Here’s the decision:

As a condominium board member or property manager, your primary responsibility is to protect the long-term value and structural integrity of the building. However, disputes over unit owner alterations—particularly those involving exterior walls and façades—often turn into protracted legal battles.

The January 2026 appellate decision in Board of Mgrs. of the 80th at Madison Condominium v. 1055 Madison Ave. Owners LLC offers a blueprint for how boards can successfully defend their governing documents and stop unauthorized work before it becomes permanent.

---

The Dispute: When Ownership and Authority Collide

In this case, a unit owner attempted to make significant alterations to the building’s exterior, including modifying exterior walls, eliminating existing easements, and affixing signage to the façade.

The Board moved for an injunction, arguing these actions violated the condominium’s declaration and bylaws. The Appellate Division ultimately sided with the Board, reinforcing a critical principle: The Board’s authority over the building’s common elements and exterior “envelope” is paramount.

Why This Case Matters for Your Board

The court’s decision to grant an injunction and declare these actions as violations provides several strategic advantages for boards and managers moving forward:

1. Affirmation of the “Exterior Envelope” Control

This case clarifies that even high-value or commercial unit owners cannot unilaterally alter the building’s façade. If your governing documents define exterior walls as common elements, this decision reinforces your right to seek an immediate injunction to stop work, rather than waiting for the damage to be done and suing for “money damages” later.

2. Strengthening the Business Judgment Rule

In New York, courts typically defer to board decisions under the Business Judgment Rule, provided the board acts in good faith and within its authority. By successfully litigating the 80th at Madison case, the board demonstrated that enforcing the bylaws against unauthorized alterations is a legitimate exercise of board power that courts will respect.

3. Protection Against “Easement Erosion”

The owner’s attempt to eliminate easements was a significant red flag. Easements are often vital for maintenance, utility access, or structural support. This decision reminds boards that they have a fiduciary duty to protect these legal rights, as allowing one owner to “extinguish” an easement sets a dangerous precedent for the entire building.

---

Action Items for Managers and Boards

How can you use this ruling to your advantage? Here are three proactive steps:

• Review Your “Alteration Agreement”: Ensure your agreements specifically mention that any work affecting exterior walls, windows, or the building façade requires explicit, written Board approval, regardless of the owner’s internal permits.
• Audit Your Signage Rules: The Madison Avenue case specifically addressed the affixing of signs. If your building has commercial components, review your bylaws to ensure you have clear aesthetic and structural standards for signage.
• The “Injunction-First” Strategy: If an owner begins unauthorized exterior work, do not simply send a “nasty letter.” Use the 80th at Madison case as precedent to show your legal counsel that an immediate preliminary injunction is a viable and supported path in New York courts.

---

The Bottom Line

The 80th at Madison decision is a win for architectural uniformity and board authority. It sends a clear message to unit owners: the governing documents are not suggestions—they are enforceable contracts. By staying vigilant and citing recent case law, boards can deter aggressive owners from taking “self-help” measures that compromise the building’s character.

Here’s the case.

For cooperative boards, their management companies, and their legal counsel, navigating the termination of a proprietary lease for “objectionable conduct” is one of the most sensitive and high-stakes responsibilities. The legal framework for these actions is primarily governed by the Pullman doctrine, established by the New York Court of Appeals in 40 W. 67th St. v. Pullman, 100 N.Y.2d 147 (2003). Recent case law continues to refine how courts apply this doctrine, providing boards and their management partners with clearer guidance on protecting the cooperative community while minimizing legal risk.

Understanding the Pullman Doctrine

The Pullman doctrine provides that a cooperative board’s determination to terminate a shareholder’s proprietary lease for objectionable conduct is protected by the Business Judgment Rule. This means that courts will generally defer to a board’s decision as long as the board:

• Acts within the scope of its authority.
• Acts in good faith and in the furtherance of the legitimate interests of the cooperative.
• Does not engage in discrimination or disparate treatment.

Under this standard, a court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the board, provided the board follows the specific procedures outlined in the cooperative’s governing documents, such as the proprietary lease and bylaws. This deference gives boards significant authority-but only when they act properly and document their decisions thoroughly.

Recent Applications of Objectionable Conduct Terminations

Several recent cases highlight the types of behaviors that the boards found to be “objectionable conduct” and demonstrate how boards-working with experienced management companies and legal counsel-are successfully enforcing lease terminations:

1. Chronic Nuisance and Safety Violations

In Rockwood Owners Corp. v. Rainess, the cooperative board, supported by its management company’s detailed documentation, successfully sought to recover possession of an apartment due to several years of unpaid maintenance and a pattern of objectionable conduct. The specific behaviors cited included:

• Propping apartment doors open in violation of local fire laws.
• Leaving personal items and food in common hallways.
• Loitering and attending to personal hygiene in the building lobby.
• Appearing nude or partially nude in hallways and visible through open apartment doors.

The court noted that the defendant’s tenancy had been terminated, and the cooperative successfullyproceeded with an action for ejectment.

2. Maintenance and Physical Neglect of Units

In 61 E. 72nd St. Corp. v. Modell, the board successfully moved for summary judgment on an ejectment action based on a decade of documented objectionable conduct. The primary grounds for termination included:

• Failure to maintain the interior of the apartment.
• Engaging in behavior that negatively impacted the building and other residents.

3. Non-Monetary Defaults and Eviction

In Matter of Peters v. Caton Towers Owners Corp., the court upheld the cooperative’s right to terminate a lease and proceed with an auction of shares based on “objectionable conduct.” This case is significant because it clarifies that:

• Foreclosures and terminations can be based entirely on non-monetary defaults rather than just unpaid maintenance.
• Minor typographical errors in a Notice of Sale (such as the wrong year) do not necessarily void the sale if they are not “seriously misleading” and the petitioner had actual notice.

Best Practices for Boards and Management Companies

To ensure that a termination for objectionable conduct stands up to judicial scrutiny under the Pullman doctrine, boards and their management companies should focus on the following best practices:

• Strict Procedural Compliance: The board must follow every step required by the proprietary lease, including providing proper notices and holding required meetings.
• Documentation: Boards should work closely with their management companies to maintain detailed logs of incidents, complaints from other residents, photographs or video evidence where appropriate, and all communications with the offending shareholder. Professional property management firms are invaluable in creating the comprehensive documentation record that courts expect.
• Uniform Enforcement: Avoid claims of disparate treatment by ensuring that rules are applied consistently across all shareholders. Management companies play a crucial role in tracking enforcement patterns and ensuring consistency.

By grounding their actions in the Pullman doctrine and maintaining a clear record of the conduct in question, cooperative boards-in partnership with experienced management companies and experienced legal counsel-can effectively protect their communities from disruptive and dangerous residents.

Here are the cases.