• 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

Boards

Home Boards (Page 10)
Condo and Coop Boards get rules from the NYC Department of Buildings on complying with Local Law 97

Condo and Coop Boards get rules from the NYC Department of Buildings on complying with Local Law 97

Under NYC Local Law 97 (Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions), most buildings larger than 25,000 square feet must meet caps on their greenhouse gas emissions beginning in 2024 or face hefty fines. By 2030 and 2050 there are increasingly tighter limits. 2024 though is right around the corner and the NYC Department of Buildings has finally issued rules on how condo and coop boards can comply with Local Law 97.

Boards and their management should familiarize themselves with the DOB’s 26 pages of rules which gives guidance on complying with this looming legal requirement. Here is the final rule the DOB released.

Final-Rule-Procedures-for-Reporting-on-and-Complying-with-Annual-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-for-Certain-BuildingsDownload
Boards have to watch their Officers – Florida Condo President arrested 3 times for hiding cameras in homes

Boards have to watch their Officers – Florida Condo President arrested 3 times for hiding cameras in homes

What a way to wake up on Christmas morning. Happy holidays to all.

Robert Orr, president of the Las Brisas Condominium Association in Florida was arrested for the third time for installing hidden surveillance cameras in owners homes. I can understand the first time, but three times. Here is the article. Mr. Orr ought to hire himself a criminal defense attorney, but the condo association should put their insurance carrier on notice in case the victims decide to point their fingers back at that board for not taking action to remove President Orr after the first, then second arrest. Three times is a charm and perhaps the owners will take action if the board isn’t willing to do so.

Condo governing documents typically include a provision indemnifying board members for acting within the scope of their authority as board members. This conduct by Orr should fall without that indemnification, but one might ask what was the rest of the board doing after it learned about the first and second arrest for invading owners’ privacy and installing surveillance cameras inside homes without authority. If an association officer is accused for bad conduct like this, boards should consider whether removing the officer from his or her position is a good idea during an official investigation and resolution of the matter. Boards can change officers simply with a board vote. Boards have a fiduciary duty to all of their owners. If an officer is accused of installing cameras inside people’s homes, removing the officer is one of the first things a board should consider. Boards typically can’t remove board members themselves and need an owners’ vote to do so depending on their bylaws. Noticing an owners meeting for the owners to make a decision on board member removal may also be a good idea. In the end, the board is above any one member and if an officer acts improperly, the board should look out for the best interest of the entire community.

Second Department says HOA Board Pet Restriction has to be a Declaration Amendment

Second Department says HOA Board Pet Restriction has to be a Declaration Amendment

The appeals court which governs over Brooklyn, Staten Island and Long Island, just issued a decision holding that the Meadowbrook Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc.’s rule that dogs greater than 25 pounds can’t be on the association premises, was unenforcible and should have been done by an amendment to the HOA’s Declaration. That would have required a vote of 66 2/3% of the owners and then a recording of the amended Declaration against each of the HOA units.

The Second Department explained that:

[T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the board’s adoption of the house rule was not authorized by the condominium bylaws, and thus, the adoption of that rule was not protected by the business judgment rule (see Yusin v Saddle Lakes Home Owners Assn., Inc., 73 AD3d 1168, 1171; Strathmore Ridge Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Mendicino, 63 AD3d 1038). Since neither the condominium bylaws nor the condominium declaration of covenants, restrictions, easements, charges, and liens (hereinafter the declaration) contained any restriction on the size of dogs permitted on the condominium premises, the house rule constituted an amendment of a permitted use of the plaintiff’s unit, which, pursuant to Article X of the condominium bylaws, required approval by 66 2⁄3% of the homeowners at a noticed meeting, and an amendment to the declaration (see Gabriel v Board of Mgrs. of the Gallery House Condominium, 130 AD3d 482; Board of Mgrs. of Vil. View Condominium v Forman, 78 AD3d 628, 630).

Turan v Meadowbrook Pointe Homeowners Assn., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07255

It is critical for boards to have experienced counsel analyze whether a rule change is sufficient or whether an amendment to the governing documents by an owners’ vote is necessary. Read the decision here.

Turan-v-Meadowbrook-Pointe-Homeowners-Assn.-Inc.-2022-NY-Slip-Op-07255Download
Condos and Coops Banning E-Bikes

Condos and Coops Banning E-Bikes

Amending your governing documents isn’t always the easiest thing to do because it requires a vote by unit owners in condos and the proprietary lease in coops. An amendment to the governing documents is probably necessary for an e-bike ban, and can’t be handled by a board change to the condo’s rules and regulations or coop’s house rules. Opponents of the rule would argue that an e-bike ban is no different than a smoking or pet ban in a building which need to be done by governing document amendments. They would be correct that amending the governing documents makes it a certainty until the owners decide to change the governing documents again. Rule changes can be made by a board vote and thus when the board changes, the new board could easily change the rule. That’s not the case with a governing document change.

So what’s a board to do regarding an e-bike ban. If a governing document change is possible then the board could try that. If it imposes the change by a rule amendment by the board alone, it could be subject to challenge.

Condo Boards have to be Careful in Giving Licenses

Condo Boards have to be Careful in Giving Licenses

Condominiums that want to give exclusive use of common space to a particular unit owner, often use a license agreement to do so. Selling common space requires approval by unit owners and sometimes all of them voting in favor of a sale because all unit owners in a condominium owns a percentage of the common elements. Boards get around this hurdle by using a license which is a legal instrument that has to be carefully drafted in order to comply with the law and avoid all sorts of problems for the condo.

A new case filed in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan shows how the devil is in the details of these license agreements and choosing specific wording in them can be problematic. In MGP 1011 LLC v. Condominium Board of The Citizen 360 Condominium, Index No. 654809/2022, the complaining plaintiff (identified as Mallory G. Parker, the sole member of the LLC in the complaint) bought a condo apartment in the defendant 82 unit condo from a prior owner who bought from the sponsor. The sponsor sold purchasers the exclusive use to parking spaces ($150k a space) and storage lockers as ancillary amenities, which were memorialized in license agreements by the sponsor controlled board to those unit owners. Parking spaces in the condo were licensed by the condo (because they are common element) to the unit owners.

In the license the condo specified that “Parking Spaces will be able to accommodate automobiles with a maximum weight of approximately 6000 lbs. and with maximum length of approximately 17 feet.” The condo could have left out that detail from the license, but didn’t. Well, Ms. Parker’s LLC bought a condominium unit from owners who bought the unit from the sponsor along with a license for a parking space, and is complaining essentially that the condo breached the license agreement because her Acura RDX SUV which is 3783 lbs. and 15.5 feet doesn’t fit in the parking space she licensed.

I am sure that the condo will defend the case or figure out a way to settle it, but one lesson from the dispute is that condo boards have to be very careful in crafting license agreements. Words really do have meaning and sometimes, like in the Parker – Citizens 360 Condominium dispute, it’s better not to use them at all and at other times being very specific it important. Here is the complaint for inquiring minds.

Citizen-360-holdings-llc-case-1Download
Condos Collecting against Owners with Assets

Condos Collecting against Owners with Assets

New York condominiums have a variety of ways to collect amounts owed by unit owners. If demands and being nice do not cause owners to pay their obligations, then condo boards have tools available to cause owners to pay.

If the unit owner is renting the unit, the condo can send a notice to the renter and demand that the renter pay its rent to the condominium until the arrears are paid. Some renters comply after receiving the notice but others do not because they are fearful of retribution by their landlord unit owner (which is prohibited by law). The condo can escalate the matter and bring suit against the unit owner and the renter to force the payment.

If there are common amenities, condos may be entitled to withhold those amenities until arrears are paid. So lack of access to health clubs, pools, parking, etc. may be just the medicine that the unit owner needs to clear their arrears. Careful consideration of the condo governing documents and applicable laws should be done by an attorney to make sure the condo is within its rights to withhold certain amenities.

Condo governing documents also usually contain a provision allowing the board to escalate the payment of a whole years worth of common charges. Certain notices are required and then the entire remainder of the year becomes due and owing by the unit owner. Concerning over this happening could cause a unit owner to pay.

Under governing documents, condos typically have an automatic lien over the common charges and other amounts due by owners to the condo. To put the world on notice that the lien exists, condo boards usually record a common charge lien against the offending unit in the land records. They’ll need to do this if the board decides to foreclose that lien. After recording, sending a lien to a unit owner sometimes is enough to get them to pay or at least start a dialog about a payment plan if the board will allow such a plan. Some do with terms built into the agreement like interest on what is essentially a loan, a confession of judgment which means that the condo gets judgment if the owner defaults on the agreement without having to go through a full blown court proceeding, and other terms that are favorable to the condo.

Another route for a condo board is to bring a money judgment action against the non-paying unit owner. At the end of the lawsuit which can be in a variety of courts depending on the amount due, the condo can get a judgment for money. Having the judgment in and of itself could convince the unit owner to pay or enter into an agreement regarding payment. Judgments are good for 10 years so the likelihood of collection spans a long period of time. Unlike the common charge lien which is against the condo unit only, the money judgment can be used to go after other assets owned by the unit owner.

Collecting against a judgment could be as simple as looking at the last check that the unit owner wrote to the condo and serving a restraining notice against that bank. Unit owners who don’t want to pay and have done some research on collection, may have already closed that bank account. Some try to evade collection by paying with money orders or in ways that do not disclose a bank name and account number. There are restrictions on restraining notices that have to be followed. If the condo doesn’t know which bank the unit owner uses, there are strategies to find them. Once restrained, the bank account can be executed upon and if owned with others, turnover proceedings can be initiated.

Other avenues for collection include going after non-liquid assets such as brokerage accounts and stock ownership, or from a business owned by the unit owner (NY Marshals can place a levy on the business, stopping the unit owner from collecting draws, bonuses, interest without paying the debt to the condo).

If the unit owner is working, their wages can be garnished. A NYC Marshal can garnish up to 10% of the owner’s wages. Just faced with the possibility of garnishment and their employer learning about their debt may cause an owner to pay his or her arrears with the money they are keeping under a mattress.

Another approach to collection is finding other real property owned by the unit owner and making sure the money judgment lien is recorded against the property in the land records. It’s similar to a common charge lien on the condo unit (which has higher priority that money judgment liens). The money judgment lien can be placed on other real property and foreclosures of that property can be pursued.

If the unit owner transferred assets to others to evade recovery, there are tactics to reverse transfers that are fraudulent conveyances and seize the assets to pay off the amounts owed. If money is owed to the unit owner by others, we can cause that money to be seized from the others persons or entities.

Another target for collection is personal property. I can’t tell you how many times a board member advises, the person is in arrears but they are driving a brand new car. The car could be leased and thus owned by a leasing company, but if the car, boat, motorcycle, art, jewelry or other personal property of value is owned by the unit owner then it is fair game for collection.

If all of the above doesn’t produce money to pay the arrears, discovery can be taken to learn about assets or other ways that collection can be successful. We can serve written questions that must be answered under oath. We can obtain a court order that they appear for a deposition to answer questions about their assets or employment. We can subpoena documents from them or others related to their assets.

Navigating the above is tricky and should be done methodically by experienced counsel. What’s nice about condos is that the condo governing documents generally contain a provision allowing the condo to collect attorneys’ fees and costs of collection. So the time and effort needed to collect ends up being charged back by the condo to the unit owner and is collectible as provided in the governing documents. Once unit owners realize this, they often want to cut their losses and resolve in some way that is favorable to the condominium.

Local Law 97 – Affected Buildings bigger than 25,000 Square Feet have to Prepare

Local Law 97 – Affected Buildings bigger than 25,000 Square Feet have to Prepare

New York City Local Law 97 puts carbon caps on buildings bigger than 25,000 square feet — the city’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Property managers and the boards they manage are faced with a looming deadline and the threat of thousands of dollars in penalties. The Department of Buildings’ rules for how this will work were only released in October and are still being finalized.

Complying with the law is likely going to be different for each building: The pathway is unique to each building, based on its age, finances, heating and cooling systems and state of maintenance. Buildings will have to comply. It is mandatory. Most affected building owners must comply with the law by 2024.

If owners don’t make a “good faith effort” to comply, as the DOB indicated so far, they could face fines of $268 for every ton of carbon dioxide emissions above the limit. The DOB has not yet defined what constitutes a good faith effort.

The first step for compliance is to figure out whether a building’s emissions would meet the imposed caps and to get a sense of what it would take to shrink those emissions. That means investing now in a study and report.

Building owners, condominium and cooperative board, and managing agents can start by reviewing the building’s classification and other relevant information to determine if the building is subject to the law. If the building is subject to Local Law, retaining an energy auditor now to commission a performance study to benchmark the building’s current emissions output and identify whether, based on the building’s current performance, it is anticipated that the building will be in compliance in 2024 and thereafter, is a good idea. This should be done in conjunction with professional management and counsel.

NYC Landlords may no longer be able to use Criminal Background Checks for Tenants – How about Coop and Condo Boards

NYC Landlords may no longer be able to use Criminal Background Checks for Tenants – How about Coop and Condo Boards

A controversial bill prohibiting NYC landlords from performing criminal background checks on prospective tenants – even those convicted of murder and other heinous crimes – is on a fast track to becoming law.

At least 30 of the City Council’s 51 members have agreed to back the “Fair Chance for Housing Act,” which is set to go before the Council’s Committee on Civil Rights for its first public hearing on Dec. 8th. Although there are still hoops to jump through, with the City Counsel support and Mayor Adams pledging to sign the bill into law, it seems as though it is inevitable.

The law doesn’t prohibit landlords from checking New York’s sex offender registry regarding prospective tenants. But the bill’s current language leaves landlords vulnerable to renting to people who committed sex crimes in other states because out-of-state sex offender registries are not addressed. The bill also doesn’t affect New York City Housing Authority complexes and doesn’t apply to two-family homes or homeowners renting out single rooms.

As for coops which are essentially landlords to their proprietary lessee tenants, the law seems to apply to them so far. So using criminal background checked to vet purchasers may not be allowed if the law passes. Condos on the other hand are not landlords/tenants, unless they own units for rent, and as such would not fall within the law, leaving condo boards in a position to continue criminal background checks. This is not law yet, but on the horizon.

Taking a Strong Position on Access Agreement Enforcement is Important

Taking a Strong Position on Access Agreement Enforcement is Important

`

Access agreements are routine in New York City construction. If the agreement is drafted properly with important provisions in the event of default including nonpayment is important. Escrows and upfront payment provisions are helpful as suggested in this article but a well crafted attorney fee provision in favor of the non-breaching party, and other provisions can be the difference between a difficult enforcement and an easy one. Properly crafting these access agreements so that these types of provisions are contained therein is imperative.

Wage Transparency Requirements

Wage Transparency Requirements

The way co-op and condo boards advertise job openings, recruit applicants and promote employees is about to undergo a radical change. Starting on Nov. 1, 2022, all New York City employers with four or more employees, including co-op and condo boards, must include a “good faith” salary range for every job, transfer and promotion opportunity that they advertise. As long as one of the employees works in New York City, the workplace is covered by this law. Covered employers must adhere to this law when advertising jobs that are performed either remotely or at the building itself.

The law governs advertisements for full or part-time employees and for independent contractors. Ads are defined as any written descriptions of available jobs, promotions or transfers in any medium — from an internet posting to a flier on a bulletin board. But the law does not require employers to create a written ad in order to hire for a job, nor does it prohibit hiring without using a written ad.

Information in a covered advertisement must include a “good faith” minimum and maximum salary range. “Good faith” means what an employer honestly believes it will pay the successful job applicant. A salary includes an hourly or annual rate of pay — “$15.00 an hour” or “$50,000 per year.” Salary does not include overtime pay, insurance, paid sick or vacation days, or other forms of commissions, such as tips or bonuses.

Open-ended salary ranges are not sufficient. For example, an advertisement that states a job will pay a “maximum of $45,000 a year” or “$18 an hour and up” does not satisfy the new requirements.

Employers who violate the New York City law may have to pay monetary damages to affected applicants and amend future advertisements. If an employer cures a first violation of this law within 30 days of receiving a notice of violation from the New York City Commission on Human Rights, it will not have to pay a civil penalty. But if an employer does not cure, it may have to pay a civil penalty of up to $250,000 for each uncured violation.

  • 1
  • 2
  • …
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • …
  • 18
  • 19

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