First published: Jan 2026
A Key Refusal, Among Other Things
TAKEAWAY Before terminating a proprietary lease based on objectionable conduct, boards must carefully document specific incidents of default and clearly explain how the shareholder’s actions harmed other residents or the building. The dates and times of the incidents as well as the specific clauses of the proprietary lease and house rules that are allegedly breached should be sufficiently detailed as well. In appropriate circumstances, especially in view of a well drafted complaint, the court will order an eviction/ejectment of the defaulting shareholder as well as referral to a referee for a calculation of damages. This, in turn, enables a co-op to bypass landlord-tenant court and tenant friendly judges who may sympathize with the shareholder and provide an unjustified opportunity to cure.
61 E. 72ND ST. CORP. V. MODELL
WHAT HAPPENED Leslie Modell has been a shareholder at 760 Park Avenue since 2012 (also known as 61 East 72nd Street). Beginning in 2013, the board became concerned about her conduct, which included failing to provide the co-op with a key to her apartment; failing to maintain the apartment’s interior resulting in leaks into neighboring units; refusing access requests by building staff; and failing to address hazardous conditions that she created or exacerbated. The board also cited her failure to provide proof of insurance, leaving garbage in the elevator and abusing building staff. After nearly a decade of issuing verbal warnings and cease-and-desist letters, the board in April 2022 notified Modell of her right to appear at a special board meeting convened to consider termination of her proprietary lease. She did not attend the meeting and the board voted to terminate her lease and ownership interest and directed her to surrender her stock certificate and vacate the apartment. Modell ignored both requests, and the board took her to court seeking her eviction, surrender of her shares, unpaid rent and maintenance, damages, and attorneys’ fees.
IN COURT The court agreed with the co-op, finding that Modell had failed to act in the cooperative spirit and had endangered the health, safety, and well being of her fellow residents, and harmed the value of fellow shareholders’ investments. The court noted her refusal to pay maintenance, even after entering a court ordered stipulation, and her failure to take remedial action to correct defective conditions within her apartment.
Testimony from an earlier 2017 proceeding involving the same parties and the same judge, provides a window into the judge’s thinking: “She can’t live in a building that she doesn’t own herself if it means that other people are at risk because she won’t act in accordance with her proprietary lease.. . . You have two high-priced law firms here over someone who won’t allow people access into an apartment simply in the case of an emergency, handing [over] a key. . . . It is clear in the proprietary lease, it is clear in the Multiple Dwelling Law - and if you can’t live in a building with other people, you should go.” The court awarded the co-op immediate possession of the apartment, directed the surrender of Modell’s stock certificate, and granted recovery of unpaid use and occupancy, including assessments, and legal fees.
COUNSEL for the co-op SCHRERO, ELIZABETH D., PENDERGRASS, KRISTIN ELIZABETH Seyfarth Shaw; for Modell KRAKOWSKY, JOSHUA S., HUTCHER, LARRY KENNETH Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, VERNON, DARRYL M., SILAGY, YORAM, VERNON, AUSTEN BERNSTEIN Vernon & Ginsburg; Justice Robert R. Reed
