Case Notes in
2025
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
- 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
- Violations
- Warranty of Habitability
- Yellowstone Injunction
- Zoning
First published: Dec 2025
Sublet by Another Name?TAKEAWAY The court’s decision turned on whether Montali’s specific request was truly necessary for her to live in and enjoy her apartment. It concluded that other, less drastic options were available to address the limitations caused by her disability, and that her proposal went beyond what the law required — particularly where the request appeared to at least be partly driven by financial considerations rather than medical necessity. However, the motivations behind the co-op’s alleged retaliatory actions could not be resolved so easily, and the court said they warranted closer scrutiny. The case serves as a reminder that board members and managing agents should proceed carefully, and consult counsel, before communicating directly with residents on sensitive accommodation or enforcement issues that could later become the basis for litigation.
Read full articleFirst published: Dec 2025
Did No One Notice?TAKEAWAY The key lesson is that no matter how outrageous the facts seem to be, a party asking for summary judgment, which is a request for the judge to decide the case without a trial, must be able to convince the court that there really are no issues of fact. Courts have long required that anyone seeking summary judgment present solid, detailed evidence showing that they are entitled to win as a matter of law and that all meaningful factual questions have been resolved. If the moving party cannot meet this high standard—because the request is premature or the evidence is incomplete—the court has no choice but to deny its motion for summary judgment.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2025
Don’t Dawdle Over Service DogsTAKEAWAY This case highlights the legal risks condo boards face when they postpone or mishandle disability-related accommodation requests. The Monarch board did not respond in a timely way to a request for a service dog, asked for medical records despite the condo having a stated policy against doing so and hired a psychiatrist without ever giving a clear decision on the request. Boards should respond promptly, in writing, whenever an accommodation request is made. They should also understand what qualifies as a disability under the various federal and state statutes affecting disabilities and know what documentation they are legally allowed to request. Finally, because claims against individual board members can move forward if there are allegations of their personal involvement, board members should ensure requests are handled quickly, carefully, and consistently to reduce the risk of liability.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2025
A Tax Abatement TangleTAKEAWAY Challenging decisions made by city agencies is almost never straightforward. In a case like this, where the mistake seems to have come from the Department of Finance rather than the co-op, the real question becomes: who is responsible for fixing it? Should the shareholder have taken the lead, or was it the co-op’s job to push the agency for correction? What’s clear is that the situation snowballed. A relatively routine $4,000 assessment grew into a years-long dispute that ultimately cost Tracy Schusterman more than $100,000 in legal fees.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2025
From Clutter to CourtroomTAKEAWAY As our population ages, hoarding situations are becoming increasingly common. When direct efforts to gain a resident’s cooperation fail, boards can seek court orders requiring owners to clean up and correct hazardous conditions that threaten health, safety, or the well-being of other residents and the building. The evidence of the conditions should be as current and thorough as possible in order to accurately convey to the court the seriousness and exigency of the present circumstances. To prepare for such situations, boards should ensure they have up-to-date emergency contact information for all owners, which can be vital in resolving these issues quickly. In some cases, agencies such as Adult Protective Services can be brought in to provide support and intervention.
Read full articleFirst published: Nov 2025
No Party for the Party WallTAKEAWAY Although the developer did not win, the law may soon shift in their favor. In June 2025, both houses of the New York State Legislature passed an amendment to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 881. If the Governor signs it, the new law would allow developers to ask a court for permission to install permanent encroachments, such as underpinning, when doing demolition or foundation work. This would be a major change — currently, courts can only grant temporary access. The new law is expected to face challenges, but it clearly tilts the balance toward developers. This case highlights why careful negotiation matters. The record in this case reveals some of the major concerns that may arise from an adjacent building’s construction including lack of adequate crack monitoring, rodent infestation, trespassing workers, attempted break-ins from the scaffolding, cancellation of the co-op’s property insurance on account of possible underpinning, and a major increase in insurance premiums going forward. It's important to be proactive. If a neighboring developer seeks access, boards should work closely with their attorney, architect, and engineer to negotiate the strongest possible license agreement. That agreement should ensure the developer reimburses the building for its legal and professional fees and includes protections for the property and residents. A well-drafted license agreement should address all of these risks — possibly including license fees, escrowed funds to cover ongoing costs, and clear procedures for handling any damage that occurs.
Read full articleFirst published: Oct 2025
No Unit — No Seat — No CaseTAKEAWAY Allegations of bad faith or breach of fiduciary duty require real evidence, not just dissatisfaction with a board’s actions. Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with decisions made within a board’s authority and in good faith, and the business judgment rule protects boards from having their decisions second-guessed so long as those decisions are rational, honest and serve a legitimate purpose for the building. This case underscores that a board’s careful adherence to its governing documents - coupled with professional advice from attorneys or other experts - provides a strong defense against legal challenges. For unit owners considering litigation, it’s important to remember that courts will defer to a board’s discretion unless there is proof of fraud, self-dealing, or other misconduct. And in this case Zihenni and his LLC had had no proof that the board acted in bad faith or beyond its authority.
Read full articleFirst published: Oct 2025
Was it a Trivial Sidewalk Defect?TAKEAWAY Personal injury cases are a subspecialty of litigation, subject to various rules, doctrines, and standards. Here, the condominium endured discovery, a half dozen motions, and five years of litigation before its attorneys were able to file a motion for summary judgment and dismissal based on the “trivial defect doctrine.” While the motion did not succeed, the litigation path and timing is fairly typical of a personal injury case. Here’s the good news and the takeaway: if this condo had liability insurance, as seems likely, then the litigation costs and defense were not paid by the condo—they were paid by the insurance carrier. The value of having good insurance is not that the carrier will pay out to an injured party, though that is obviously important. The real, practical value is that the carrier has a duty to defend the condo against lawsuits like this; the carrier will select attorneys with suitable expertise from its own “panel” of law firms; and the law firm’s fees will be paid directly by the carrier. As such, a good board will make sure that its condo or co-op community has a solid liability policy issued by a reputable carrier. A really good board will also keep an eye on the sidewalks, because it is easier to fix a tripping hazard than to engage in litigation.
Read full articleFirst published: Sep 2025
The Malfunctioning Overflow DrainTAKEAWAY Courts don’t let insurance companies get away with using overly narrow or confusing policy language to deny coverage. If the wording in an insurance policy is too vague for a condo board or policyholder to reasonably understand, a court may decide the loss should, in fact, be fully covered. That means if a condo disagrees with an insurer’s denial, it’s worth talking to legal counsel and, when necessary, pursuing the issue in court. Also, just because someone admits they caused an accident doesn’t automatically mean they are legally responsible - unless the act was intentional or malicious.
Read full articleFirst published: Sep 2025
A Drill Too FarTAKEAWAY This case is a warning for co-op and condo boards: even if bad renovation work was done by a previous owner, a new owner can still try to hold the board responsible if problems aren’t addressed. Here, the court allowed claims about noise and water leaks to move forward, finding they could amount to a nuisance tied to earlier faulty work. The decision shows why boards should always require proper alteration agreements for renovations and the importance of requiring that future owners assume the continued obligations of a previous owner under such alteration agreement.
Read full article