• Home
  • About us
  • Capabilities
    • Condo, Coop, HOA Counsel
    • Litigation
    • Business Law
    • Technology
    • Real Estate
    • Employment Law
    • Tax Audits
    • Family Law
  • Insights
  • References
  • FAQ
  • Inquiry
    • Payment
Colbert LawColbert Law
Colbert LawColbert Law
  • Home
  • About us
  • Capabilities
    • Condo, Coop, HOA Counsel
    • Litigation
    • Business Law
    • Technology
    • Real Estate
    • Employment Law
    • Tax Audits
    • Family Law
  • Insights
  • References
  • FAQ
  • Inquiry
    • Payment

Posts by Team Colbert Law

Home Author Team Colbert Law (Page 14)

About Team Colbert Law

With offices in New York and Connecticut, we are ready to handle your legal needs. We have been representing condo, coop and HOA boards, businesses and individual clients for over twenty five years.

NY LLC’s for Condo Ownership do not have to Disclose Personal Information

NY LLC’s for Condo Ownership do not have to Disclose Personal Information

The New York state tax department unhinged the real estate industry by requiring that LLCs list the names and individuals with ownership interests in condo deals and sales of one- to four-family homes across the state.  The law, designed to address building and zoning violations, makes the names of owners public under the state’s Freedom of Information Law.

But facing opposition from the real estate community, the tax department walked back the law, saying that the new disclosure law was limited to those who own one- to four-family homes and eliminated condominiums.

In the tax department’s words:  “The department’s initial understanding of the new law was generated based on the agency’s preliminary reading of the bill language and how it interacted with other relevant sections of the law. Since that time, the bill sponsors have clarified their intent.”

 

The Tenant Protection Act Significantly Affects New York Cooperatives

The Tenant Protection Act Significantly Affects New York Cooperatives

The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act was enacted recently in New York State to protect millions of tenants in rental properties but it also affects coops because of the landlord-tenant relationship with owners. The Act imposes the following on all landlords, including coops:

  1. Landlords can’t get fees and other charges including late fees and attorney’s fees in Housing Court (only maintenance) and have to start separate civil actions to recover those.
  2. Security deposits are limited to one month’s rent/maintenance. Escrows of substantial maintenance as a condition to a coop board’s approval of a purchaser are not possible.
  3. Late Fees cannot exceed $50 or 5 percent of monthly rent/maintenance, whichever is less. If coop’s governing documents provide for higher late fees, they will be uncollectible.
  4. Purchase Application fees could be limited to $20. The New York Department of State issued a memorandum in September 2019 excluding coops regarding this provision but until the law is changed, it is risky to charge the typical application fee which is usually much more than $20.
  5. An Extra 5-Days Certified-Mail Notice is Required after Nonpayment. So, if a tenant/shareholder does not pay rent/maintenance within five days of when it is due, the landlord/coop must send a notice by certified mail. 
  6. Tenant/Shareholder could argue “Extreme” hardship to get out of a non-payment judgment of possession for up to one year.  So, if the tenant/shareholder stops paying and the landlord/coop sues and gets a judgment of possession, the tenant/shareholder can argue for up to a year more of possession. 

Until the law is changed, coop boards must be aware of these new limitations and restrictions.

Sublet Fees for Sponsors or Holders of Unsold Shares

Sublet Fees for Sponsors or Holders of Unsold Shares

Attorney Joe Colbert discusses a recent case allowing New York cooperative boards arguably to charge sublet fees for their sponsors or holders of unsold shares even though their proprietary leases say otherwise.

 

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROo4h4-4toU[/embedyt]
IRS AUDIT NOTICE – What NOT to do!!!!

IRS AUDIT NOTICE – What NOT to do!!!!

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0ri6YkaiOg[/embedyt]
Board Enthusiasm

Board Enthusiasm

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCeCOZtlQeU[/embedyt]
Management Transitions – The Management Agreement – Automatic Renewal Provisions

Management Transitions – The Management Agreement – Automatic Renewal Provisions

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyeeNhnPinM[/embedyt]
NY Cooperative Application Fees are not Limited by New Law

NY Cooperative Application Fees are not Limited by New Law

New York State has clarified that the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act does not restrict Cooperative boards from charging more than $20 for purchase applications.  

On September 13, 2019, New York State Department of State issued guidance for real estate professionals (the guidance) concerning the Housing Security & Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (the Act). The guidance loosens the application of the $20 limit on application fees and background checks for coops. Therefore, coop boards may charge application fees in excess of $20 in connection with the sale of a coop unit.  

It is not clear how this all affects sublet fees and whether they can till be charged above the limit.   The other part of the law that still applies to coops is the limit on security deposits to one month’s rent or maintenance.  Some coop boards required substantial maintenance escrows as a condition of the approval of the sale.  The law prevents this now.  Also, the law limits late fees to $50 or 5 percent of monthly maintenance, and has provisions that will make it more expensive and difficult to evict residents who fail to pay their rent or breach the proprietary lease. Stay tuned as we learn more from the State. 

Association Document Handling – Avoids Court Sanctions but Leaves Serious Concerns

Association Document Handling – Avoids Court Sanctions but Leaves Serious Concerns

The cooperative at 118 East 60th Street in Manhattan got lucky.  Its books and records including alteration records were maintained at its management firm’s office – Matthew Adam Properties.  When sued, the cooperative and management was demanded to turn over alteration records but was unable to do so because of water damage at management’s office.  The other reason raised was a 7 year document retention policy which the cooperative and management claimed was followed and thus the requested records were no longer available.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the cooperative and management, including the individual board members named as defendants, spoiled the evidence and thus, they should be sanctioned in the suit.  The Court refused to do so based upon the photos of the water damage that management presented along with what the Court considered a reasonable document retention policy which it had no reason to believe was not followed.

This is all fine for this lawsuit, but what about all the other books and records that were destroyed by the water damage.  Maybe some of those books and records were needed by the cooperative and not having them safe kept from such casualty was a bad idea.  In today’s digital age, digitizing documents is easy and if property maintained, can withstand casualty.  Once the records are in electronic form, they can be maintained (and proven to be maintained) in accordance with a document retention policy.  

The Court in the the 118 East 60th Owners Inc. case didn’t speak about individual board member records regarding alteration decisions.  Perhaps plaintiff’s counsel did not go after the individual records just yet.  In many cases, board members inadvisably use personal email to conduct board business including alteration and other decisions by the board.  Maybe the destroyed records are located in the emails.  If the cooperative had an electronic office like and Office of the Board (www.officeoftheboard.com), all of those records would be contained in the Office and all of them could have been either maintained to withstand casualty and/or purged and gone forever as a part of a document retention policy.  Stay tuned on the lawsuit, there are probably appeals and future decisions to come.  Read the decision here.

New Law – 6 Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Martin Act Claims by the NY Attorney General against Developers

New Law – 6 Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Martin Act Claims by the NY Attorney General against Developers

The New York Court of Appeals’ decision that a shorter 3 year statute of limitations applies to New York Attorney General claims under the Martin Act against developers and others, was changed by a new law just signed by Governor Cuomo.  The new law establishes that the statute of limitations is not 3, but 6 years.  This will make a difference in going after developers for construction defect and under claims under the Martin Act.  Essentially claims that the developer did not deliver what was promised in the publicly filed offering plan. Read more.

Using Personal Email Accounts for Business is Problematic

Using Personal Email Accounts for Business is Problematic

A business entity’s business records can be discoverable in lawsuits. When employees or board members of a business entity are using their personal email accounts like gmail, yahoo, etc. to conduct business, those personal email accounts are fair game when it comes to discovery.  The complication is that business emails are now mixed with personal emails in those accounts and an adversary could be allowed access to both the business and personal emails.  How embarrassing would that be?

This issue just came up in a lawsuit between Exxon Mobil and the State of New York. Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager is presiding over the lawsuit in which Exxon Mobil has accused the Attorney General’s Office of official misconduct and acting with a conflict of interest.

Exxon Mobil has alleged that Schneiderman, while in office, used his personal email account to conduct official business related to his office’s investigation of the company. Exxon Mobil had obtained a series of communications relevant to the litigation through discovery that Schneiderman had forwarded to his government account from his personal email.  Based on that finding, the company went for the jugular, demanding broader access to Schneiderman’s personal email account to support their claim of official misconduct on his part.

The company suggested in recent filings that there may be additional communications on Schneiderman’s personal email account that he chose not to forward and preserve. Those communications could have shown he was influenced by environmental activists to trigger an investigation and bring litigation against the company.

The Court ruled that, instead of unfettered access to Schneiderman’s account, Exxon Mobil would be provided with a signed declaration from Schneiderman certifying that anything relevant on the account was made available to them through discovery.

What a mess created by Schneiderman using a personal email account instead of just his office’s business email account.  

The Court’s resolution of the discoverability issue, for the moment, does not change the fact that business email in personal email accounts is not shielded from discovery.  Schneiderman has to provide a sworn declaration certifying that relevant emails in his personal account were all turned over.  Exxon Mobil could appeal the decision and continue arguing for access to the entire personal email account to make its own assessment of what is relevant rather than relay on a declaration by its adversary in a contentious litigation.  We’ll have to wait and see.

This serves a warning to businesses and their employees and board members.  If you allow employees or board members to use personal email accounts to conduct business, those emails are discoverable and will expose the entire email account (both personal and business emails) to discovery.

  • 1
  • 2
  • …
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17

Recent Attorney Publications

  • When Contractors Lack Licenses: Key Lessons for Condos, Co-ops, and HOAs July 25, 2026
  • When Bankruptcy Won’t Stop Your Foreclosure Sale: What Condo Boards and Management Need to Know About Repeat Filers July 22, 2026
  • When Repetitive Filings Cross the Line: Lessons from Fulton v. Yameogo July 21, 2026
  • Condominium Boards: Why Being Aware of First Mortgage “Standing” Can Protect Your Community’s Bottom Line July 13, 2026
  • Winning the Common Charge Battle: How Condo Boards Prevail Against Defiant Unit Owners July 2, 2026

Contact Us

Send us a note and we'll get back to you promptly.

OFFICES

  • Manhattan Office
  • 315 Madison Avenue, Suite 4032, New York, New York 10017
  • 646.880.3000
  • 646.880.3048
  • Westchester Office
  • 44 South Broadway, 21st Floor, White Plains, New York 10601
  • 646.880.3000
  • 646.880.3048
  • Connecticut Office
  • 55 Post Road W, 2nd Floor, Westport, Connecticut 06880
  • 203.349.8100
  • 646.880.3048

Latest Publications

  • When Contractors Lack Licenses: Key Lessons for Condos, Co-ops, and HOAs July 25, 2026
  • When Bankruptcy Won’t Stop Your Foreclosure Sale: What Condo Boards and Management Need to Know About Repeat Filers July 22, 2026
  • When Repetitive Filings Cross the Line: Lessons from Fulton v. Yameogo July 21, 2026
  • Condominium Boards: Why Being Aware of First Mortgage “Standing” Can Protect Your Community’s Bottom Line July 13, 2026

© 2026 Colbert Law LLC Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Highend Logo

Manhattan Office

  • 315 Madison Avenue, Suite 4032, New York, New York 10017
  • 646.880.3000
  • 646.880.3048

Westchester Office

  • 44 South Broadway, 21st Floor, White Plains, New York 10601
  • 646.880.3000
  • 646.880.3048

Connecticut Office

  • 55 Post Road W, 2nd Floor, Westport, Connecticut 06880
  • 203.349.8100
  • 646.880.3048

OUR EXPERTISE

When Contractors Lack Licenses: Key Lessons for Condos, Co-ops, and HOAs

July 25, 2026

A recent NYC Civil Court decision (Fortes v. Decorating and...

When Bankruptcy Won’t Stop Your Foreclosure Sale: What Condo Boards and Management Need to Know About Repeat Filers

July 22, 2026

For condominium boards foreclosing on unpaid common charges,...

When Repetitive Filings Cross the Line: Lessons from Fulton v. Yameogo

July 21, 2026

Community association boards—whether governing condos,...

Condominium Boards: Why Being Aware of First Mortgage “Standing” Can Protect Your Community’s Bottom Line

July 13, 2026

When a condominium unit owner defaults on their monthly...

Winning the Common Charge Battle: How Condo Boards Prevail Against Defiant Unit Owners

July 2, 2026

Condominium boards and property managers face a unique,...

When the Neighbor Builds: What Condo and Co-Op Boards Need to Know

June 29, 2026

Construction in New York City is a fact of life, but when a...

Succession Rights in Limited-Equity Co-ops: Practical Lessons from Mutual Redevelopment Houses v. Manyevitch

June 12, 2026

Succession disputes are among the most sensitive and...

The Post-Settlement Trap: What Fiondella Teaches Co-op Boards About Stipulations and Continuing Habitability Claims

June 9, 2026

For New York cooperative boards and managing agents,...

The Derivative Action Threat: Why “Limited Common Elements” Present Litigation Risks for Condominium Boards and Managers

May 16, 2026

A recent decision by the Appellate Division, First...

Governance and Rule-Making in the Modern Condominium

April 27, 2026

Reflections on 10MSW17D LLC v. Bd. of Managers of 10...

Don’t Delay: Why Timely Enforcement of Common Charges is Critical for Condo Boards

April 15, 2026

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of New York,...

RPAPL § 881 Licenses, and Why Fee Reimbursement Is a Core Deal Term

April 13, 2026

Boards and managers of condominiums, cooperatives, and...

The 432 Park Decision: A Masterclass in Risk Management for New York Condo Boards

April 2, 2026

New York condominium boards and management companies operate...

Protecting Your Building’s Integrity: Lessons from Board of Mgrs. of the 80th at Madison Condominium v. 1055 Madison Ave. Owners LLC

March 31, 2026

As a condominium board member or property manager, your...

Press Enter to search · Esc to close