Legal Decisions…Simplified and Specific.
A distinguished panel of New York co-op/condo attorneys analyze recent NY co-op/condo decisions. Subscribers receive a monthly PDF Digest of these case summaries and takeaways, an Advance Sheet of co-op/condo court cases recently decided, and access to the searchable Tracker database.
Take a Test Drive for $130-Day Test Drive. Cancel Anytime.
The Specifics of Search Success…
Addressing the specific and unique needs of today’s niche community of New York's co-op and condo professionals, Case Law Tracker does the heavy lifting—combing through and drawing out the cases most relevant to your needs.
Case Summaries
Focusing only on co-op and condo cases, practicing attorneys in this field prepare case summaries and useful takeaways - helping you understand what the case is about so you can quickly determine if it benefits you.
Case View
Our Quick View feature enables you to instantly determine if the case is relevant to your needs and provides you with a fast click to the full details of the case including judges, case history, as well as an active slip op link to related court documents.
Monthly Digest & Monthly Advance Sheet
A pdf Digest of all co-op/condo cases added to the database is emailed monthly to you. Plus, to keep you up to date on what the courts have most recently decided, you'll receive, monthly, an Advance Sheet with case names, decision and docket links, judges, and brief decision excerpts.
Searchable Database
Speeding you to exactly what you need, our robust search offers: a simple quick search; dropdown menus to refine that search; and powerful filtering capability that lets you drill down even further by court, judge, residence, tag, and date.
Advisory Panel
Our experienced advisory committee, comprised of industry-specific experts who truly understand the issues that matter to you, write the case summaries. They know what you need to know and help you get to that information as quickly and easily as possible.
Case Watch
Emailed twice-monthly, Case Watch focus on providing insight on one particularly relevant case—clearly explaining what happened, why it’s important, and what lessons can be learned within. Case Watch reaches two audiences: lawyers who subscribe to the Co-op & Condo Case Law Tracker and Habitat Magazine subscribers (co-op and condo board directors, property managers and other industry professionals).
Case Notes See all
Case Notes provides insight on one particularly relevant co-op or condo case—clearly explaining what happened, why it’s important, and what lessons can be learned within.
First published: Dec 2024
A Win for the ClimateTAKEAWAY Nearly 18 months passed between the filing of the Glen Oaks complaint and the court’s dismissal of it. One of the more interesting things about the Glen Oaks lawsuit is how much the ground had shifted under the plaintiffs’ feet during that period. For example, New York State released its final Scoping Plan under the CLCPA in December 2022, which, among other things, included an entire chapter highlighting the importance of coordinated action with local jurisdictions. “Partnership with local governments,” explained the Scoping Plan, “is a keystone of the State’s clean energy, adaptation and resilience, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation strategies” – a direct (if implicit) rebuke to plaintiffs’ assertion that the CLCPA pre-empted the CMA. As noted above, the Glen Oaks court was convinced that the two laws were not only consistent but should be read together. In addition, the Department of Buildings issued two sets of rules during the interim period that filled in many of the “vague” provisions of the law. For example, under the first set of rules issued in 2022, the DOB incorporated 61 different use-and-occupancy subgroups with different emissions factors for each, hopefully leading to more equitable and realistic emissions targets for covered buildings. With the newly issued “good faith efforts” rules, the DOB spelled out a detailed process by which building owners could seek to reduce or eliminate the annual fines issued for noncompliance during the 2024–2029 period. These rules underscore New York City’s position, contra the Glen Oaks plaintiffs, that building owners should have multiple viable compliance pathways short of just accepting massive annual fines. This decision is by no means the last word on legal challenges to Local Law 97. Not only is it expected that the Glen Oaks plaintiffs will appeal, but there will likely be new legal challenges once the DOB starts issuing fines to non-complying buildings in 2025. Nevertheless, this decision is a landmark in legitimating robust climate policy at the local level.
Read full articleFirst published: Jul 2024
Window DramaTAKEAWAY: This decision exemplifies some of the difficulties that condominiums may have in maintaining the building’s exterior envelope when the governing documents classify the windows as part of the unit and not part of the common elements. Window replacements are notoriously expensive and difficult to coordinate, and yet may be increasingly necessary as buildings age and energy efficiency compliance mandates ratchet up. In this case, the many apparent benefits of a coordinated building-wide replacement program were not enough to persuade the court to give the board dominion over the unit owners’ “private property.” This case may be distinguishable from other otherwise similar situations in that it appears that the board never made a finding that the plaintiffs’ specific windows were damaged or otherwise needed to be replaced. If the board had been armed with a finding from an engineer that these particular windows had failed, perhaps the unit owners could have been compelled to join the replacement program as part of their contractual duty to keep their apartment in good repair. Here, however, there were allegations in the record that the plaintiffs’ particular windows were in good condition.
Read full articleFirst published: Jun 2024
It’s Not My Manhole CoverChristian Jones, a California resident, sued Tower 53, its managing agent and Con Ed for personal injury and loss of consortium after tripping and falling over a Con Ed manhole cover, and the Appellate Division ruled that Tower 53 and its managing agent were responsible for maintaining the sidewalk.
Read full article