• 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

Business

Home Business (Page 12)
Sidewalk Shed Trespass Claims Dismissed against Condo

Sidewalk Shed Trespass Claims Dismissed against Condo

In New York City, sidewalk sheds are typical.  In many instances, buildings have to install them to perform facade work. If dangerous exterior conditions exist, a sidewalk shed might have to be installed on an emergency basis.  That’s exactly what happened at the Icon Building located at 306 West 48th Street back in 2017.  

The condo installed the sidewalk shed after there was breakage of the tempered glass on the building’s north facade and prior failures of its glass curtain wall.  The Building Department got involved, issuing violations and ordering that the condo immediately install the sidewalk shed.   The neighboring building at 300 West 48th Street didn’t like the shed in front of its building, and it sued for trespass and encroachment in 2018.

In most cases, condos and coops that are required to install sidewalk sheds which infringe upon their neighbors’ property, obtain licenses from the neighbors captured in agreements before installing the shed.  However, in an emergency, there may not be time to reach such agreement.  It’s not clear whether The 306 West 48th Street Condominium approached its neighbors before installing the shed.  That would have been a good idea, irrespective as to whether 300 West 48th Street would have been agreeable.

The lawsuit started in 2018 and it took one year for the condo to obtain a dismissal of the neighbor’s case.  The condo argued for dismissal because it was required by the Building Department to install the shed on an emergency basis and as such, the condo “was required, while making repairs to the facade of its building, to erect a sidewalk shed for public safety purposes.”  Thus, the Court held that the neighbor’s claims “are without merit and do not fit within a cognizable theory of trespass and encroachment.” You can’t have a trespass or encroachment when you are legally required to do something the condo argued.

The result seems to be correct, but a year of legal fees had to be incurred to get to an end.  The neighbor may still appeal which would mean more legal fees and costs. Prior to infringing on a neighbor’s property rights, it is always a good idea to try to reach an agreement and avoid lawsuits like this.  Sometimes, and especially in emergency situations, doing so is not an option, but in most cases it is possible to consult with your neighbor in advance, try to reach an understanding and memorialize it in an agreement.

Read the decision.

 

Court gives Wiggle Room for Condo Declaration and Bylaw Amendments Done Incorrectly

Court gives Wiggle Room for Condo Declaration and Bylaw Amendments Done Incorrectly

Amending condominium declaration and bylaws can be difficult; particularly if boards are not guided properly.  The original bylaws when the condo was conceived by the sponsor may be outdated, incorrect or need to be changed for a myriad of other reasons.  If the board doesn’t do it correctly, the condo could get caught up in a litigation like the Towers on the Park Condominium in Manhattan.  A pro se unit owner sued years ago and the appellate court in New York just put an end to the amendment challenge.  In doing so, the Court absolved the condo from a few errors that it made in the amendment process.  The better course however is to get it right the first time so that expensive litigation and acrimony in the condo because of challenges like this do not occur in the first place.

The first step is to determine what the board wants to change in the declaration and bylaws and whether it can obtain the required number of unit owners to vote for the amendment.  Usually, such amendments require a super majority that can be difficult to obtain. There are way, however, to obtain the necessary vote, but it has to be done correctly or suffer a challenge.  

In the Towers on the Park Condominium case the Court mentioned the process used in the vote where the board left the meeting open because it did not obtain the necessary 80% at the first meeting.  This is a typical tactic employed by condo boards but it has to be done correctly at the meeting.  If not, it could be fatal to a vote, but at least this Court saw the defect as technical and absolved the board. It helped though that the challenger overlooked and did not dispute this error in her litigation papers. This is an example of getting is right the first time and avoiding the chance that another court may not be so forgiving.  Imagine if the Court threw out the amendments years later after the condo was governing under the amendments, possibly invalidating board actions under the improper amendments.

The other step that the Towers on the Park Condominium didn’t take correctly was recording the declaration and bylaw amendments with the City Register.  Amendments to declarations and bylaws have to be recorded against each unit in the condominium after the amendments is properly approved by owners.  This is another important step.  The Towers on the Park Condominium board did not record the amendment right away but did do so before the lawsuit to challenge the amendment was filed with the Court.  As so, the Court forgave the condo board again.  The law in NY is that such amendments are not effective until recorded with the City Register against each unit. Thus, the recording should be planned in advance and done right after the necessary vote is obtained.  

Realizing that amendments are difficult, it is important to get the language of the amendment correct.  Once that is nailed down, as long as proper procedure is taken, the road should be smooth for a board.  With Towers on the Park Condominium, the road was not so smooth tying it up in litigation for years.  But, now that the clouds have passed, the changed declaration and bylaws should serve the condo well for years to come.

Read the Reynolds v. Towers on the Park Condominium decision.

Boards have to Be Aware of Fellow Board Member Bad Behavior

Boards have to Be Aware of Fellow Board Member Bad Behavior

A classic example of board leaders acting badly because there is no oversight by other board members, just happened in New Jersey.  A little league board President and Treasurer teamed up and took over $100k from the organization.  How did they do it?  None of the other board members were overseeing the organization’s finances and business.  

There was no framework available for the board members to do so.  The President and the Treasurer had all the organization’s bank and other records, so they took what they wanted without anyone looking.  Some might say that the board was derelict in its duty to the organization by not putting a system in place to be able to do so.  Now they shouldn’t wait. 

Applications like Office of the Board can be up and running in minutes and cost as little as $360 a year.  If the youth sport’s board had an Office of the Board, the President and Treasurer could have been deterred, spotted and/or stopped.  

Whether you’re a member of a youth-sport’s board, booster board, homeowners’ association, condo, coop board, church board, nonprofit board, or any other board run by volunteers, do not make the same mistake that these other boards made. Oversight and transparency are really easy to have immediately.  Read about the NJ little league board.

Condo Foreclosure Buyer Snoozes and Loses – Board gets to Keep Deposit

Condo Foreclosure Buyer Snoozes and Loses – Board gets to Keep Deposit

This is a classic story of “you snooze, you lose”.  A Brooklyn condo board at 442 St. Marks Avenue Condominium fought hard to collect over $88,000 in arrears from a unit owner.  In the end, after a long fight, the board gets to keep $49,000 in a good faith deposit by a purchaser at the foreclosure auction who bought without doing its due diligence (recognizing that there was a prior lien of record which would not be extinguished by the foreclosure; in other words, the buyer was buying the property with the bank’s first mortgage on the property – not a good deal), and then waiting over 6 months to challenge the sale because the condo’s representatives didn’t follow the foreclosure rules.  At least the condo walked away with some money for all its efforts.  The lesson from this case for condos is make sure you follow the rules and sometimes if you don’t, if your adversary snoozes, he may lose so that you win a little.

Under most condo bylaws, boards are vested with the obligation of collecting arrears.  The foreclosure of the common charge lien for the arrears that condos in New York have the power to foreclose, is sometimes meaningless depending on the value of the unit.  If there is a huge first, purchase money mortgage which has priority over the common charge lien then there may not be enough equity in the property to benefit the condo once the first mortgage (or any other prior liens of record) are paid out of the foreclosure proceeds.  If there is a surplus then the condo can go after the surplus from the sale.  It takes time but it can be worth the wait.  If foreclosure of the condo’s common charge lien is not worth the effort because there isn’t enough equity in the property, boards sometimes still foreclose the lien (even if the mortgagee lender before the condo’s lien doesn’t act) because the condo wants to get a new owner in who will start paying common charges prospectively.  Another approach is bringing an action for a money judgment against the unit owner who is not paying.  All of these methods, as well as some others, can be employed by the condo board in order to try to collect the arrears; a job which the board is often required under the condo bylaws to do.

Back to the case of “you snooze, you lose” – Board of Managers of 442 St. Marks Avenue Condominium v. Marc C. Milord. The condo was owed tens of thousands of dollars in common charges, but so was the first mortgage bank that was owed over $300,000.  The first bank forecloses and names the condo in the foreclosure action because it has the right to extinguish the condo’s common charge lien in the foreclosure. That bank transfers the first mortgage lien to another bank and then the foreclosure action is discontinued so the chain of title for the lien can be established by the lawyers.  In the meantime, the condo is still not getting paid its common charges, which are mounting.  The condo decides to start its own foreclosure action knowing that the value at the end to the purchaser at the foreclosure auction would be less because the condo’s foreclosure would not extinguish the first mortgage lien, so the purchaser would be buying the property subject to the first lien of over $300,000.  However, the value of the property was over $700,000, so there would be enough value for the condo to get something out of the foreclosure proceeds, or at least, a new owner who would start paying common charges prospectively.  So the condo continued with the collection effort.

The buyer however made a critical mistake and didn’t do his due diligence to discover the first lien by the bank on the property before he bought at the foreclosure sale, depositing $49,000 as a good faith deposit.  The posting at the auction by the referee (prepared usually by the foreclosing lawyers) didn’t mention the first lien by the bank and when the buyer asked the referee about prior liens of record, with the condo lawyer in earshot, both skirted or ignored the question.  The buyer bought anyway.  

The buyer sat on his rights for over 6 months (another critical mistake) and then fought to vacate the sale and get his deposit back.  The condo fought back and in the end, the Court split the proverbial baby.  The court vacated the sale but also held that even though the rules were violated by the condo and its professional, the buyer should not have waited over 6 months to get its deposit back.  So, in the end, the condo got to keep the $49,000 deposit and hopefully a new owner who will pay its common charges.  Stay tuned for an appeal by the buyer. 

NY Coops and Business Corporations are Allowed Electronic Voting for Shareholders’ Meetings

NY Coops and Business Corporations are Allowed Electronic Voting for Shareholders’ Meetings

New York has taken a tremendous leap forward in the digital age and changed the Business Corporation Law (BCL) Section 602 to allow for electronic voting by shareholders at meetings.  This means that cooperatives and other corporations covered by the BCL can start using technology for their annual meetings, elections and other voting. This will take the pain out of annual meeting, allow quorums to be established easily and avoid voting challenges.  

Unfortunately the NY Legislature did not amend the Real Property Law which covers condominiums so condos will be allowed to electronic vote for their owners only if they amend their bylaws to allow for electronic voting.  Hopefully the Legislature will make that amendment next.  We are also hoping for future changes where board members can vote electronically at board meetings.  Changes to the BCL and other laws haven’t happened just yet in that regard but we expect them to be on the way.  For now, boards can still poll members electronically and then ratify the electronic vote, for formality, at the next board meeting or use unanimous written consents for important decisions between board meetings.

So what to do next.  The new law requires that the technology has to “(A) implement reasonable measures to verify that each person deemed present and permitted to vote at the meeting by means of electronic communication is a shareholder of record and (B) keep a record of any vote or other action taken by a shareholder participating and voting by means of electronic communications at a shareholders’ meeting.”  

Applications like Office of the Board (www.officeoftheboard.com; 212.658.1912) are out of the box solutions that are easy to use and affordable.  Boards have to be careful to use only solutions that meet the laws’ specific requirements and make it easy for their shareholders to use. Read the new law here.

Board Members Stuck in Lawsuit Individually – Business Judgment Rule Doesn’t get them out on Summary Judgment

Board Members Stuck in Lawsuit Individually – Business Judgment Rule Doesn’t get them out on Summary Judgment

Whenever cooperative, condominium or HOA board members are sued individually in a lawsuit, the first thing counsel will try to do is get the case dismissed against the individuals.  The general principle is that if the board members did not commit tortious acts independent of their decision making as board members, then they shouldn’t be named in the lawsuit.  If the board members self-served themselves, for example, then the court will likely not dismiss the case against the individuals.

The next thing counsel for the board members or the cooperative, condominium or HOA will try to do is get rid of certain claims based on the business judgment rule.  If the board members and board acted within their authority, in good faith and in the best interest of the entity and all of the owners or shareholders then the business judgment rule is a great defense which can be used to end certain claims summarily on dismissal or summary judgment motions.

The First Department, Appellate Division, which oversees appeals in the Manhattan and Bronx Supreme Courts, just decided to leave cooperative board members individually in a lawsuit for trial, holding that the business judgment rule does not support dismissing claims against the board members and the cooperative, and that they should remain in the case through trial.

The Court in Nainan v. 715-723 Sixth Avenue Owners Corp. (read the decision by selecting it), issued a decision on November 19, 2019, explaining that “A board’s decision is not entitled to protection under the business judgment rule, however, when the action taken ‘has no legitimate relationship to the welfare of the cooperative, deliberately singles out individuals for harmful treatment, is taken without notice or consideration of the relevant facts, or is beyond the scope of the board’s authority’ (citation omitted)”.

The facts in the Nainan case made it difficult for the Court to side with the board members or cooperative.  Indeed, Plaintiffs there “argued that the board ignored the coop’s bylaws by deciding to enter into a contract for the sale of the coop without obtaining shareholder approval and that the board members used scare tactics to force the shareholders into agreeing to sell the coop. Plaintiffs contend[ed] shareholders were prohibited from selling their apartments while two of the board members were permitted and proceeded to sell theirs. Plaintiffs claim[ed] that the board failed to negotiate the best possible price for the sale. Moreover, plaintiffs allege[d] that one director acted as the broker for the transaction, thereby obtaining an independent financial benefit from the transaction, a fact that was not disclosed to the shareholders.”  These type of facts were enough for the Court to leave the individual board members in the case as well as most of the claims against the cooperative which are going to have to be decided at trial.

The lesson from the case however is that board members can be subjected to individual liability and have to defend themselves in lawsuits particularly if they make decision or take actions that serve the board member’s own personal interest.  Boards should be careful to make a record establishing that their decision making is covered by the business judgment rule and that they are acting in the best interest of all owners or shareholders and certainly not their own personal interest as seems to be the case with the Nainan board members.

NY’s First Department Walks Back Pomerance Condo Document Inspection Rights a Little Bit

NY’s First Department Walks Back Pomerance Condo Document Inspection Rights a Little Bit

New York’s Appellate Division, First Department (which covers the Manhattan and Bronx) just decided a case by a unit owner seeking to inspect certain condominium records.  In Frankel v. Board of Managers of the Central Park West Condominium, the Court decided on November 14, 2019, that dismissal of the plaintiff unit owner’s claim seeking inspection of condominium books and records should not be dismissed.  The Court held that “[f]actual disputes regarding whether plaintiff is acting in good faith and has a proper purpose for reviewing the books and records, as well as the scope of documents already provided, whether in electronic form or otherwise, cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.” 

In sum, condo boards and managers need to be aware of condominium unit owner inspection rights and the differences in Manhattan and the Bronx where one standard applies now, and most of the rest of New York State like Brooklyn, Westchester, Long Island, Staten Island, etc., where a different standard applies.

An interesting part of the Frankel case is that the condominium provided the plaintiff unit owner with complete access to its financial records including a copy of its general ledger.  The unit owner additionally wanted to inspect how unit owners voted in the last two elections and learn the names of unit owners who have parking spaces and which spaces they are assigned, but the condo said no. 

One might argue that the First Department didn’t walk back its 2016 Pomerance v. McGrath decision (143 AD3d 443 (1st Dep’t 2016, lv denied, 32 NY3d 913 (2019)) which came out of nowhere and was criticized by the condominium community as being baseless and beyond the books and records that the law provides that condominium unit owners are allowed to inspect.  Notably, the other Appellate Divisions including the Second Department which covers Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Long Island and Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester counties, have not yet spoken on this issue.  Irrespective of the limitations in the NY Condominium Act regarding what documents condominium unit owners can review, the First Department in Pomerance, created, out of thin air, a right for unit owners to inspect (and copy) condominium books and records, well beyond the requirement of the Condominium Act.  Perhaps, a factual distinction in Pomerance, was that the condominium’s by-laws at issue there allowed unit owners access to books and records for which typical condominium by-laws do not provide access.   At least in the Pomerance case, the Court recognized that inspections and copying (which is not provided for in the Condominium Act or in the condominium there’s by-laws) should be subject to a confidentiality agreement.  The Court never really explained why it held that unit owners were entitled to a list of names and addresses of unit owners when there is no such requirement in the Condominium Act or in the by-laws of the condominium there.  The First Department created new law in the Pomerance decision which the other Appellate Divisions have not adopted (probably because the First Department was wrong).  

In this new Frankel decision, the First Department did not just add on to its bad Pomerance decision.  Instead, the Court sent the case back to the Supreme Court for discovery and decision making into the facts as to whether plaintiff was acting in good faith with a proper purpose.  This however once again was a bad decision by the First Department in that unlike cooperative corporations which are governed by the Business Corporation Law in New York under which a different standard for record inspection rights is applicable (like whether the cooperative shareholder is seeking to inspect records in good faith for proper purposes), most condominiums are not covered by that law and that standard.  The Condominium Act and likely the by-laws in the Frankel condominium, do not allow unit owners to obtain names and addresses of unit owners with parking spaces or to review records on how unit owners voted in elections.  The First Department blew it again and should have dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in the Frankel case for inspection of the condominium’s books and records.  

In sum, the First Department in Frankel walked back the Pomerance decision a bit by not just giving litigious unit owners access to whatever condominium books and records they want to inspect and copy.  The Court got it wrong again, but at least they sent it back to the Supreme Court for further inquiry into whether the unit owner was acting in good faith with a proper purpose. Hopefully the other Appellate Divisions and maybe the New York Court of Appeals will set this straight and correctly hold that the Condominium Act and the by-laws of the condominium at issue must be examined and that condominium unit owner inspection rights are limited to the provisions of the law and the by-laws.

 

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.”

 

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.

Coop and Condo Right to Seek Legal Fee Reimbursement may have new life

Coop and Condo Right to Seek Legal Fee Reimbursement may have new life

As we previously reported, the New York Appellate Court that oversees the Manhattan and the Bronx Supreme Courts issued a unanimous decision at the beginning of November, 2018, which may significantly impact the right of cooperatives, and likely condominiums, that try to seek the reimbursement of legal fees from defaulting shareholders or owners.

In Krodel v. Amalgamated Dwellings, the Appellate Division, First Department held that the provision in the cooperative defendant’s proprietary lease covering reimbursement of legal fees is “unconscionable and unenforceable as a penalty.”  Thus, even though the cooperative there may have prevailed in the lawsuit, it could not recover its defense counsel’s fees and costs from the shareholder plaintiff who lost.

The lease provision in Krodel provided in Section 7 of the proprietary lease that:

[i] Lessor shall incur any cost, fee or expense (whether paid or not), including reasonable legal fees and other professional fees and disbursements: (a) in performing any act which the Lessee is required to perform; or (b) in connection with any action or proceeding brought by the Lessor against the Lessee, including any counterclaim asserted therein, which is based on a default of the Lessee hereunder or which is based on any other matter or thing relating to this lease, or to the Lessee’s failure to perform any act which the Lessee is required to perform, or to the Lessee’s occupancy in the Apartment, or to the shares of the Lessor issued to the Lessee, or to the Lessor’s Bylaws, Certificate of Incorporation, House Rules, or regulations duly adopted by the Board of Directors; or (c) in connection with any action or proceeding brought by the Lessee against the Lessor, including any counterclaim asserted therein, which is based on an alleged default of the Lessor hereunder or which is based on any other matter or thing relating to this lease, or to any alleged failure by the Lessor to perform any act which the Lessor is required to perform, or to the Lessee’s occupancy in the Apartment, or to the shares of the Lessor issued to the Lessee, or to the Lessor’s Bylaws, Certificate of Incorporation, House Rules, or regulations duly adopted by the Board of Directors, then such cost or expense shall be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor, on demand as additional rent.  The Lessee’s obligation to reimburse the Lessor for such costs, fees and expenses shall include the costs, fees and expenses incurred by the Lessor in (a) obtaining an award of such costs, fees and expenses, including but not limited to proceedings to determine the amount of reasonable legal fees and other professional fees to be awarded, and (b) recovering payment in full of such costs, fees and expenses from the Lessee.

Click here to read the Krodel Court’s decision.

Notwithstanding the First Department Decision, in Board of Directors of 340 East 93 St. Corp. v. Acevedo, the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the coop plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for an award of legal fees for having to bring an injunction lawsuit.  The Court granted summary judgment against the defendants on the ground that the coop was entitled to award under the proprietary lease because it prevailed. 

An interesting component of this case is that the parties entered into a Court ordered stipulation regarding the injunction and the Court deemed this prevailing in the action.  The proprietary lease in the case contained the typical attorneys’ fees provision that:

28.  If the Lessee shall at any time be in default hereunder and the Lessor shall incur any expense (whether paid or not) in performing acts which the Lessee is required to perform, or in instituting any action or proceeding based on such default, or defending, or asserting a counterclaim in, any action or proceeding brought by the Lessee, the expense thereof to the Lessor, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements, shall be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor, on demand, as additional rent.

The 340 East 93rd St. Corp proprietary lease doesn’t seem much different than the Krodel proprietary lease in that both do not require the coop to prevail in order to be able to recover attorneys fees.  The Krodel Court invalidated the lease provision, but the 340 East 93rd St. Corp Court did not.

I suggest waiting to see if the parties move to reargue or appeal the decision.  The Court ordered a hearing on the amount of legal fees.  If the parties appeal, this may be an opportunity to ask the First Department to have another look at the provision and perhaps amicus briefs will be submitted by interested industry organizations in support of the typical proprietary lease provision which coop and similarly condo clients have been relying upon for years.

Here’s the decision in 340 East 93rd St. Corp case.

  • 1
  • 2
  • …
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

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