First published: Jun 2026
The Price of a Questionable Rejection
Takeaway Cooperative corporations no longer have, if they ever did, free rein to deny the purchase of a unit by otherwise qualified buyers who are members of a protected class. They must act responsibly to consider lawful bases for rejecting any applicant. That often includes timely interviews and consideration of relevant non-discriminatory factors concerning the applicant. It’s often in their best interest to have their counsel involved as well. In this case, there was no evidence of due consideration of the applicant’s qualifications except that she was a black and/or female. It’s possible that the fact that she was a nurse practitioner, not a physician, may have been a legitimate reason to deny her application. That reason vanished, however, when the board approved a sale to one it is board members with no medical qualifications. Boards are still not required to give any reason for rejection, and they typically will not do so. That may still change with the enactment of laws to require reasons be given.
FORRESTER V 640 PARK AVE. CORP.
What Happened A doctor, who owned a medical office unit at 640 Park Avenue, had been trying to sell it for two years when he finally received a full-price, all cash-offer from a nurse practitioner who owned a business providing skin care and other beauty restoration services around the block from the co-op. She had to relocate because her space was in a building being sold, and she hoped to continue her business in this unit. She offered to put two years’ worth of maintenance fees in escrow. The doctor, a white male, accepted the offer and downpayment from the nurse practitioner, who was a black woman, but then decided he did not wish to proceed with the sale. Instead, he sold the unit to a co-op board member, a white male who was not a medical professional, and who had never expressed interest in the unit during its two years on the market. Following this, the nurse practitioner filed a suit against the doctor, the co-op and its managing agent, alleging discrimination based upon race and/or gender.
In the Court The co-op and the managing agent moved to dismiss the discrimination claims against the co-op and the managing agent before the case proceeded to discovery. The lower court granted that request and dismissed the claims, while continuing the case against the doctor.
But the nurse-practioner appealed. In the appellate court the judge said the case was dismissed too early and reinstated the claims against the co-op and its managing agent. It found that because the managing agent acted as the broker for the board member and was involved with the nurse-practioner’s application process, it was aware that she was a member of a protected class. Bringing in a buyer who had no apparent use for the unit as a medical unit was enough to support the allegations that the board and its managing agent were involved in the doctor’s determination to not proceed with the sale, permitting an inference of discrimination. As a result the court concluded that the nurse-practioner could proceed with discovery to support the inference of discrimination by these defendants.
For Kareen Forrester MATTHEW BRIAN WEINICK, Famighetti & Weinick; for 640 Park Ave. Corp. and Brown Harris Stevens Residential Management SETH DAVID GRIEP and CHRISTOPHER IMAD MDEWAY, Kaufman Dolowich; Justice Gerald Lebovits
