Case Notes in
2026
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: Feb 2026
Packages, Protests, and Protected SpeechTAKEAWAY As noted by Judge Rosado, this is a case about “good corporate citizenship.” This decision reinforces that courts strongly protect resident and board communications with regulators, even when motivated by hostility toward a commercial neighbor. Boards do not incur tort liability simply by raising safety or quality of life issues with city agencies, even if those complaints lead to inspections, police visits, or business disruption. However, the opinion also implicitly warns against informal or personal tactics. Allegations about publishing a tenant’s phone number, encouraging harassment, or staging confrontations, while insufficient here, illustrate how easily governance disputes can escalate into reputational and litigation risk. Best practice remains disciplined procedural enforcement: written rule violations, documented inspections, coordinated communication through counsel, and reliance on formal regulatory mechanisms. Boards should avoid acting as neighborhood activists and instead operate as corporate fiduciaries. When boards remain institutional, neutral, and process-driven, they benefit from both substantive tort defenses and the powerful shield of New York’s anti-SLAPP statute.
Read full articleFirst published: Feb 2026
The Consequences of Rolling Back RightsTAKEAWAY This case demonstrates that once a board conveys important amenities to a tenant that are maintained for years, an attempt to later claw them back through a change to the house rules risks a lawsuit. The appellate court’s decision shows that if there is evidence that the rule change may have targeted and discriminated against a particular tenant or group of tenants, a court may hold that the business judgement rule does not apply to allow for a quick summary dismissal, leaving the board to face the bad publicity, acrimony, time demands, and costs of ongoing litigation. Still, the appellate court’s decision to let stand the trial court dismissals of counts relating to the freight elevator rule changes, notwithstanding their sweeping nature and seemingly adverse business implications for commercial tenants in a heavily commercial building, demonstrate that the business judgment rule’s protections are still quite substantial. It is also helpful, as occurred here, for a board to pass a more general rule that clarifies and provides notice regarding its powers prior to taking action on particular amenities through a house rule.
Read full articleFirst 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: Jan 2026
A Key Refusal, Among Other ThingsTAKEAWAY 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.
Read full article