• 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

Litigation

Home Litigation (Page 8)
New Electronic Discovery Rules in New York State Court

New Electronic Discovery Rules in New York State Court

The New York State Unified Court System just adopted additional rules and guidelines in the Commercial Division for Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) on April 11, 2022.  The goal of the revisions is to address e-discovery in a more consolidated way, modify the rules for clarity and consistency, expand the rules to address important ESI topics consistent with the CPLR and caselaw. 

Under the amended Rule 11-c, parties are required to confer regarding electronic discovery prior to the initial conference.[i]   The rule further provides that any topics upon which the parties cannot reach agreement are to be addressed with the Court at the preliminary conference.

The amended Rule 11-c also addresses efficiency and cost with respect to electronic discovery. The new rule adopts a cost-benefit analysis similar to the standard in Federal Court and requires that “[t]he costs and burdens of ESI shall not be disproportionate to its benefits.” Cost shifting can be a game changer in many cases if handled appropriately. To that end, the parties are required to consider “the nature of the dispute, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the materials requested to resolve the dispute.” The amended rule also encourages the parties to use technology-assisted review when appropriate, and the parties are required to confer regarding “technology-assisted review mechanisms” throughout the discovery period. Lastly, the amended rule adds a claw-back provision for inadvertently produced ESI that is subject to either attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. This is extremely valuable as waiving the privilege by inadvertent disclosure otherwise could result in attorney liability or violation of professional responsibility.

The amendments also modify Appendix A to Rule 11-c—which previously only addressed non-party ESI.  The new Appendix A replaces the non-party guidelines “with new guidelines to cover all aspects of ESI, from parties and non-parties alike.”    Specifically, the new ESI guidelines (1) encourage early discussion of ESI and suggest that an informal meet and confer process is preferred to formal discovery or motion practice; (2) counsel parties to limit discovery requests to what is proportional to the needs of the case; and (3) encourage informal resolution of disputes regarding ESI.  The goal of these guidelines is to “facilitate the cost-effective, predictable, and fair adjudication of cases.”  The guidelines make clear that parties “should not use discovery of ESI for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” 

The modifications also include general guidance on a number of specific ESI issues, including:  (1) the importance of technical competence in e-discovery; (2) the obligation of counsel to actively assist in preservation, collection, search, review, and production of ESI; (3) defensible preservation and collection of sources of ESI; (4) processes for determining if ESI is “not reasonably assessable;” (5) processes for determining acceptable formats for ESI production; and (6) a claw-back provision for inadvertently produced documents.  

The remaining amendments primarily streamline the rules and correct references based on the amended Rule 11-c.  See more.

Manhattan Appeals Court Decides that Attorney and Engineering Fee Reimbursement is Appropriate in RPAPL Section 881 License Matter

Manhattan Appeals Court Decides that Attorney and Engineering Fee Reimbursement is Appropriate in RPAPL Section 881 License Matter

The First Department issued a decision no February 15, 2022, clarifying that reimbursement of engineering and legal fees are appropriate components of consideration ordered by Courts when a building seeks a license to access a neighbor’s building under RPAPL Section 881. Here is the case. The Court ordered that an award of anticipated fees was not correct but that the ones incurred should be awarded. The Court also didn’t like escalating license fees as it saw them as punitive. The Court did modify the order by the lower court regarding the consideration granted and offers clarity for condo and coop boards negotiating license agreements for access with their neighbors in Manhattan. One particular provision the Court changed is not leaving the license open ended but rather limiting it to a period of time. For the condos that were being inconvenienced, it was the unit owners with rooftops or terraces that were being impacted which were awarded the license fees. This was based on a hearing before the lower court. The association as a whole is often impacted generally in addition to specific unit owner impact and thus arguments for a general license fee can be made. It is often helpful to work out an amicable agreement without court intervention but sometimes using the courts is the only way to reach a resolution. Having experienced people handle the negotiations, memorialization in an agreement or battle in court if needed is important.

Eviction got a Little Bit Easier but a Little More Complicated

Eviction got a Little Bit Easier but a Little More Complicated

On August 12, 2021 the United States Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of Part A of the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (the “Residential Moratorium”).   In Chrysafis et al. v Marks, 594 U.S. ____ (2021), the Supreme Court held that the Residential Moratorium’s hardship declaration mechanism, which “generally precludes a landlord from contesting th[e] certification [set forth in the signed hardship declaration form] and denies the landlord a hearing . . . violates the Court’s longstanding teaching that ordinarily ‘no man can be a judge in his own case’ consistent with the Due Process Clause,” and as a result enjoined enforcement of the Residential Moratorium. A copy of the ruling is available here. Thus, at least for the moment, residential landlords don’t have to serve the hardship declaration form together with pleadings and predicate notices as the Residential Moratorium had previously required.    However the landscape is still complicated because various New York State legislators have proposed extending the Residential Moratorium to October 31st. Such an extension, if enacted, would likely involve a different moratorium mechanism that complies with the Supreme Court’s ruling by providing some form of hearing in connection with a tenant’s hardship claims. More complication but at least due process. Even if New York State does not extend the Residential Moratorium, New York landlords may be constrained by the application of the federal CDC moratorium, which is also being challenged in court.   

On the commercial front, the COVID-19 Emergency Protect Our Small Businesses Act of 2021 (the “Commercial Moratorium”) contains a hardship declaration mechanism that is virtually identical to that contained in the Residential Moratorium. However, the Commercial Moratorium was not before the Supreme Court and its current status is not clear. Nevertheless, with the Supreme Court’s holding that the hardship declaration mechanism violates due process, it appears certain that the Commercial Moratorium will not be extended beyond August 31 in its current form, if at all.  

The bottom line is that the eviction landscape is still complicated and with politicians trying to make it difficult to evict and court’s moving at a slow pace, landlords need to be careful and aggressive in order to get what they need.

Westchester County Coops have to give a reason now for Rejections

Westchester County Coops have to give a reason now for Rejections

Westchester Coop Boards have new law to deal with. The parade of horrible litigation over rejections could result. A minefield of legal complication for boards and management to navigate.

The new local law amendment requires boards to provide a notice of rejection to the Westchester County Human Rights Commission with 15 days of notifying prospective buyers of a denial. It also requires coop boards to disclose their minimum financial requirements to potential buyers.

https://therealdeal.com/tristate/2021/06/30/westchester-compels-co-op-boards-to-justify-rejection-of-buyers/

Coops almost free of Tenant Protection Act Restrictions

Coops almost free of Tenant Protection Act Restrictions

Hallelujah. When new law passes, the constraints by the Tenant Protection Act like the recovery of legal fees in housing actions will not apply to coops.

Read more.

Condo Boards have to be Careful in Withholding the Waiver of the Right of First Refusal

Condo Boards have to be Careful in Withholding the Waiver of the Right of First Refusal

The Board of Managers of the Oceana Condominium No. Two learned recently that withholding the waiver of the right of first refusal cannot be used to block an unwanted condo sale.

In this particular condo, the President of the Board owns and lives in the unit directly below the unit being sold, and he allegedly did not want children living above him. The prospective purchaser has young children, and the President also allegedly did not want a sale for the low sales price. The contract was subject to short sale approval by the bank holding the first lien on the unit, a short sale which had been approved by the seller􏰅s bank. The purchaser claimed that the Board was troubled that it would appear in the public record and lower the value of the units in the development, so the Board interfered with her contract with the selling unit owner, so she was not able to purchase the unit. The condo board did not choose to exercise their right of first refusal, but they would not provide the document which this development ordinarily provides, stating that they were not exercising their right of first refusal. Without this document, the purchaser’s lender refused to close. The sale was lost as a result of the Board’s delay, the holder of the second lien on the unit foreclosed on the unit, preventing the purchaser from closing and the purchaser sued.

The Court threw out all of the claims against the Board and individual Board members except for a tortuous interference with contract claim against the Board. So, the litigation continues, with escalated legal fees and costs escalating because of the decision making by the Board or its President. In this particular case it appears that directors and officers insurance responded with a defense but even then the condo is responsible for paying a deductible and claims like this can impact future insurability and/or the cost of insurance. In some cases, we’ve seen individual board members ask for their own counsel because of possible conflicts of interests considering the Board President there seems to be the primary culprit.

With some good legal advice and management guidance, this situation could have been contained and avoided. For the Oceana Condominium No. Two, the saga continues.

Read the decision here.

New Legislation would change standard for Coop and Condo Evictions

New Legislation would change standard for Coop and Condo Evictions

More tenants’ rights legislation. If passed condo and coop owners would have to show “good cause” to evict.

The bills, if enacted, would change how someone owning real estate could treat an occupant of space regardless of whether the occupant had a legal right to occupy the space. These bills apply to all residential real estate except rent-stabilized and rent-controlled apartments, and owner-occupied houses with less than four units.

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2021/A5573

Covid-19 Condo, Coop, HOA Disclaimers

Covid-19 Condo, Coop, HOA Disclaimers

Covid-19 changed a lot. Condominium, cooperative HOA boards had to change as well. Protecting owners and residents in this new world presents many legal challenges and potential liabilities. Mitigating liability should be on the minds of every board and their management’s.

We haven’t seen an influx of Covid-19 liability lawsuits yet, but they will surely come in time. Insulating community associations and their boards and managers should definitely be on the agenda. Particularly because the insurance industry has indicated that COVID-19 claims will not be covered by insurance per the broad disease and health exclusions found in most policies.

So, what can be done? First, be careful and thoughtful in decision making. Make sure the board has authority to do what it is doing or not doing. This can be tricky, especially with ever changing federal, state and local laws. Before a board makes a decision that has legal implications, consult with an attorney and get sound legal advice. Boards are allowed to rely on the advice of their counsel and that will be a defense if their decision making is challenged by owners or others.

Keep a historical record of the decision making in well thought out minutes and other documentation. Sometimes lawyers will advise just to take minutes on the actual decision made by a board and not add too much detail as it is not required. The other school of thought and advice is to include details when you know the minutes are going to be used to help defend a board’s decision. This is a minefield that seasoned advice can help navigate.

Some boards are considering amending their governing documents to protect against Covid-19 liability for the association and board members individually. As with all disclaimers of liability, they are not a shield against the association being found liable for failing to take reasonable precautions to protect against foreseeable harm or injury. So, a disclaimer of liability, while helpful, is not and should not be relied on by the board to allow it to ignore open and obvious threats or dangerous conditions and take reasonable precautions to avoid them. Amending governing documents, however, is not a simple task and usually requires a meeting of owners and a vote in favor of the amendment by a super majority of owners. After passing, the amendment typically has to be recorded in the land records as well. If successful, a disclaimer of liability for COVID-19 and possible future pandemics is not such a bad idea considering that we expect insurance not to cover this liability, or become very expensive to procure such coverage. Adding a buffer in the governing documents against claims for which, as mentioned above, the association will not likely be able to insure against, should definitely be considered.

During the pandemic, some boards have adopted written waivers for owners and residents to sign before using common element. This is a policy that should be employed moving forward and will give the association and individual board members cover from liability. We’ll have to watch and see whether such waivers hold up in court after they are tested in court cases, but they certainly can’t hurt as another layer of protection. Doing them correctly so that they do not run afoul any other laws, such as discrimination laws, however, is certainly important.

Here’s a sample of an Assumption of the Risk and Waiver of Liability Relating to Coronavirus/COVID-19 form that one condo association adopted. We do not recommend the form, but wanted to give you an idea of what some association boards are adopting. If your association is interested in adopting such a waiver, it should be tailored to your association. There is not a “one size fits all” form that should be used.

The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has been declared a worldwide pandemic by the World Health Organization. COVID-19 is extremely contagious and is believed to spread mainly from person-to-person contact. As a result, federal, state, and local governments and federal and state health agencies recommend social distancing and have, in many locations, prohibited the congregation of groups of people.

The Board of our condominium association has put in place preventative measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19; however, our condominium cannot guarantee that you or your child(ren) will not become infected with COVID-19. Further, rental of a unit and participating in common area activities could increase your risk and your child(ren)’s risk of contracting COVID-19.

By using the common area facilities in our condominium, you voluntarily assume the risk that you and your child(ren) may be exposed to or infected by COVID-19 by renting and occupying a condominium unit, and/or accessing and using the common areas and amenities including but not limited to the pool, exercise and game rooms, tennis and basketball courts, and other common areas, and that such exposure or infection may result in personal injury, illness, permanent disability, and death. You understand that the risk of becoming exposed to or infected by COVID-19 at our condominium may result from the actions, omissions, or negligence of you and others, including, but not limited to, our condominium’s employees, and other renters and their families.

You voluntarily agree to assume all of the foregoing risks and accept sole responsibility for any injury to you or your child(ren) (including, but not limited to, personal injury, disability, and death), illness, damage, loss, claim, liability, or expense, of any kind, that you or your child(ren) may experience or incur in connection with our condominium or utilization of our condominium’s amenities (“Claims”).

On your behalf, and on behalf of your children, you hereby agree to release, covenant not to sue, discharge, and hold harmless the our condominium association, its Board, employees, agents, and representatives, and our condominium’s owners of and from the Claims, including all liabilities, claims, actions, damages, costs or expenses of any kind arising out of or relating thereto. You understand and agree that this waiver and release includes any Claims based on the actions, omissions, or negligence of the our condominium and its Board, employees, agents, and representatives, and our condominium’s owners whether a COVID-19 infection occurs before, during, or after your occupancy of a unit or use of the common areas at our condominium.

Again, each association is different and requires specific legal advice in order to protect itself from liability and other exposures. Staying ahead of the curve and doing everything legally and reasonably possible to do so, is important.

Another Wrinkle in Holder of Unsold Shares’ Benefit Analysis

Another Wrinkle in Holder of Unsold Shares’ Benefit Analysis

On Thursday, January 28th, the Appeals Court in the First Department which covers Manhattan and Bronx coops issued a decision which clarifies and changed the complicated law regarding holders of unsold shares and their entitlement to special privileges.

In  Pastena v 61 W. 62 Owners Corp. (1st Dept 2019) the First Department said that “paragraph 38 of the proprietary lease, which purportedly exempts holders of unsold shares from certain expenses and fees assessed by the landlord, is void as a matter of law (see Spiegel v 1065 Park Ave. Corp., 305 AD2d 204 [1st Dept 2003])”. The Court’s pronouncement allowed coops to take a strong position that the paragraph in the proprietary lease that holders of unsold shares relied upon to say they didn’t have to pay sublet fees, was void and thus, holders of unsold shares had to pay like all other subletting shareholders. There was a lot of commentary and debate over whether the Court was correct in its statement, but that was the law in Manhattan and the Bronx.

At least until Thursday January 28, 2021, when the Court was given a softball opportunity to clear up its pronouncement. Although not argued below before the Supreme Court, on appeal, a coops counsel raised the Pastena pronouncement for the first time on appeal. The First Department disregarded the argument as not being raised before the Supreme Court below and thus not appropriate for appeal, but decided to speak on it anyway.

In Bellstell 7 Park Ave., LLC v Seven Park Ave. Corp., the First Department clarified/changed its pronouncement in Pastena, explaining now that only original purchasers from the sponsor can benefit from its prior decision voiding a paragraph from the proprietary lease as against public policy, not a subsequent holder of unsold shares.

The First Department now says that “This did not render the entirety of paragraph 38 void, however, as holders of unsold shares are routinely granted special privileges in exchange for their regulatory obligations, as they are, de facto, a different class of stock than an ordinary purchaser”.  This clouds the issue though because the question now is what are the “regulatory obligations” and did the proposed holder of unsold shares comply with the “regulatory obligations” and what if they didn’t.

Coops with these complicated questions could put the burden on the proposed holder of unsold shares who has the burden of establishing their preferential status. Instead of expensive litigation, the parties may be able to negotiate an acceptable resolution. Having experienced counsel to navigate these complex waters is critical.

Federal Government Halts Some Evictions Again

Federal Government Halts Some Evictions Again

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, extended an order today halting evictions for some people through March 31, 2021.

It covers people who earn $99,000 or less a year and cannot make payment because of a loss of income or extraordinary medical costs. Tenants must prove they have exhausted efforts to get government assistance to pay rent, are making some effort to provide payment, and will be forced to move to congregate living settings or left homeless by eviction.

Landlords have to press the issue and make tenants seeking this protection prove their eligibility. This however doesn’t mean the tenants are free not to pay rent. Rent is not excused.

  • 1
  • 2
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • …
  • 13
  • 14

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