In New York, the legal landscape governing construction defect disputes between condominium boards and developers is complex and often contentious. Three recent cases highlight the nuances of such litigation, shedding light on the causes of action, procedural considerations, and the scope of damages that can be pursued.

Breach of Contract and Fraudulent Conveyances:

In Board of Managers of the 51 Jay Street Condominium v. 201 Water Street LLC, the board sued the sponsor and developer for alleged construction defects. The court dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conveyances against the sponsor’s individual board members, emphasizing that the board’s primary recourse was through breach of contract claims against the developer. This case underscores the importance of focusing on contractual obligations and the developer’s direct responsibility for defective work in some cases where breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conveyance claims cannot be stated and supported.

Consequential Damages and Implied Warranties:

Board of Managers of the 37, 39 Madison Street Condominium v. 31 Madison Development, LLC involved a dispute over defective common areas. The court limited the board’s ability to claim consequential damages, relying on a limited warranty clause in the purchase agreements. Additionally, claims for unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and negligence were dismissed as precluded by the contract and warranty. This is not the case for many condominiums and experienced counsel can advise how to state and support these claims in many cases. This decision highlights the impact of contractual limitations on available remedies and the need for boards to carefully review and negotiate warranty provisions.

Fraud in the Inducement and Sponsor Board’s Fiduciary Duty:

In Board of Managers of 570 Broome Condominium v. Soho Broome Condos LLC, the board successfully alleged fraud in the inducement against individual sponsor representatives who made misrepresentations in the offering plan. The court also upheld claims for breach of fiduciary duty against sponsor-appointed board members who engaged in self-dealing and mismanaged the budget. This case demonstrates that while contractual claims are essential, boards can also pursue actions based on fraudulent conduct and breaches of fiduciary duties by sponsor representatives.

Key takeaways for Condo Boards and Management:

These cases illustrate the multifaceted nature of construction defect litigation in New York. Condominium boards must carefully assess the specific facts of their situation, consult with experienced legal counsel, and strategically pursue the most appropriate causes of action to protect the interests of unit owners.