Case Notes in
Common Elements
Category
- Access
- Alterations
- Appeals
- Arbitration
- Assessment
- Attorney Fees
- Attorney-Client
- Authority to Sue
- Balcony/Terrace Rights
- Bike Lane
- Board of Directors
- Board of Managers
- 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
- Federal Courts Supplemental Jurisdiction
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fines
- Foreclosure
- Fraud
- Governance
- Gym
- Hoarding
- House Rules
- Indemnification
- Indemnification/Subrogation
- Injunction
- Inspection of Records
- 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
- RPAPL 881
- Sales
- Service of Process
- Sponsor
- Statute of Limitations
- Stock/Shares
- Stocks/Shares
- Sublets
- Succession Rights
- Tax
- Third-Party Liability
- Transfers
- Trespassing
- Trial Practice
- Veil Piercing
- Violations
- Warranty of Habitability
- Yellowstone Injunction
- Zoning
First published: Jan 2026
How Common Are your ElementsTAKEAWAY This decision underscores that disputes over assessment responsibility in condominiums rise or fall on the plain language of its governing documents. Where a condo declaration defines common elements to include building components that both encompass multiple units and benefit the building as a whole, courts will not allow cost-shifting by owners trying to recharacterize façade work based on subjective benefit or physical location. Legally mandated façade inspections and repairs under Local Law 11 are treated as building-wide obligations, and absent express exclusions, all unit owners must pay their proportional share. However, condo boards are not immune from scrutiny: accounting transparency, improperly filed liens, and allocation of non-façade repair work may still give rise to viable claims depending on the facts.
Read full articleFirst published: Mar 2025
Hallway HeadachesTAKEAWAY In the absence of an express written agreement or specific bylaw provision, a cooperative corporation is not obligated to repurchase common area space or shares from a shareholder-tenant who previously purchased but was unable to use such space in connection with an alteration. Here, although the co-op had agreed in principle to repurchase unused hallway space and shares from the plaintiff, in the absence of a final agreement or applicable bylaw provision, it had no obligation to do so or to waive its standard closing costs. Cooperative corporations and shareholder-tenants should consult the corporation’s bylaws to determine what terms govern the sale and later repurchase of common area space and cooperative shares. To the extent that the bylaws are silent on such issues, parties should consider including repurchase terms in any purchase and sale agreement for common area space and additional shares, to avoid a future dispute regarding the terms of repurchase by the corporation.
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: Oct 2022
When A Receiver Does the Board’s JobBoards must accumulate sufficient reserves to finance anticipated and unanticipated repairs to common elements, especially when individual unit owners are suffering ongoing damages. Remember, unit owners do not have the right to repair common elements on their own. Here, the court properly took the matter out of the board’s hands, but the methods employed by the receiver may be less efficient or economical than if the board had acted on its own. On top of this, the board will have to pay the receiver fees and costs associated with the job. Unit owners will not appreciate a board that ignores legitimate complaints from residents, incurs significant legal fees, needs to reimburse fees from affected unit owners, and, on top of everything, pay receiver commissions as well.
Read full article