Case Notes by
Lloyd F. Reisman, Partner, Belkin Burden Goldman
Category
- Access
- Alterations
- Appeals
- Arbitration
- Assessment
- Attorney Fees
- Attorney-Client
- Authority to Sue
- Balcony/Terrace Rights
- Bike Lane
- Board of Directors
- Books and Records
- Breach of Lease
- Business Judgment Rule
- Bylaws
- Bylaws/House Rules
- Certificate of Occupancy
- Charges/Fees
- Commercial Unit
- Common Element
- Common Elements
- Companion Animal
- Constitutionality
- Construction Defects
- Contracts
- Conversion
- Defamation
- Discovery
- Discrimination
- Due Diligence
- Easement
- Elections
- Estate
- Eviction
- Eviction/Termination
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fines
- Foreclosure
- Fraud
- Governance
- Gym
- House Rules
- Indemnification
- Indemnification/Subrogation
- Injunction
- Insurance
- Labor Law
- Liability of Directors
- Licenses
- Liens
- Maintenance
- Malpractice
- Management
- Mechanic's Lien
- Mediation
- Misrepresentations
- Motion Practice
- Motion Practive
- Negligence
- Notice of Pendency
- Nuisance
- Occupancy Agreement
- Ownership
- Parking
- Partnership
- Personal Injury
- Pets
- Property Damage
- Proprietary Lease
- Reasonableness
- Receivership
- Release
- Repairs
- Representations
- Sales
- Service of Process
- Sponsor
- Statute of Limitations
- Stock/Shares
- Stocks/Shares
- Sublets
- Succession Rights
- Tax
- Third-Party Liability
- Transfers
- Trespassing
- Trial Practice
- Violations
- Warranty of Habitability
- Yellowstone Injunction
- Zoning
First published: May 2025
Doggie DNATHE LESSON FOR BOARDS While rules and regulations can sometimes be used to curb certain behaviors, boards should be made aware that seeking judicial intervention to enforce them regulation may nevertheless be problematic. Here, the board’s adoption of the dog breed restriction created a presumption of viciousness while also creating a potentially irreconcilable conflict with applicable law. By not commencing an action within the statutory three-month period, the board was entirely dependent on its ability to demonstrate through evidence and testimony that the dog “caused damage to the premises, created a nuisance or interfered with the health, safety or welfare of other residents of the building.” In this case, the facts did not support such a determination.
Read full articleFirst published: May 2024
Dog DNAA co-op board failed to establish that a dog was a nuisance and that its breed restriction was relevant, as the dog did not behave in a dangerous or threatening manner and the board did not commence an action within the statutory three-month period.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2023
You Like Beige, I Hate ItTAKEAWAY Boards and shareholders alike should read this decision (and the lower court decision) as cautionary tales of how a seemingly innocuous issue can snowball into a complete breakdown in communication and trust, and ultimately result in costly litigation. While it may be too late for the parties involved, boards and shareholders who find themselves in similar situations should consider mediation as a first attempt to resolve these “domestic” disputes amicably. In particular, boards should consider encouraging shareholders to submit their disputes with neighbors to mediation so that the parties are afforded an opportunity to communicate their concerns and interests. Ideally, having been given an opportunity to do so, they will be able to develop their own mutually agreeable resolutions without the board’s involvement and legal expense (let alone without resorting to litigation). Boards seeking to require mediation of disputes among residents should work with their attorneys to develop and implement appropriate changes to house rules and other governing documents.
Read full article