CO-OP | CONDO CORNER
By Aaron Shmulewitz
Aaron Shmulewitz heads BBWG’s co-op/condo practice, consisting of more than 300 co-op and condo Boards throughout the
City, as well as sponsors of condominium conversions, and numerous purchasers and sellers of co-op and condo apartments,
buildings, residences and other properties. If you would like to discuss any of the cases in this article or other related matter,
you can reach Aaron at 212-867-4466 or ([email protected]).
WATERPROOFING CONTRACTOR MUST INDEMNIFY
CO-OP FOR PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM BY
CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEE
Guzman v. 170 West End Avenue Associates Appellate
Division, 1st Department
COMMENT | The Court held that, since the co-op was only
vicariously liable due to the “Scaffold Law,” indemnificati on
by the contractor did not violate public policy.
CO-OP HOLDER OF UNSOLD SHARES CAN ONLY
DESIGNATE ITS ALLOTTED BOARD REPRESENTATIVES,
AND CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY VOTE FOR OTHER
(RESIDENT) BOARD SEATS
420 W. 206th Street Owners Corp. v. Lorick Supreme Court,
New York County
COMMENT | This co-op’s bylaws stated that the HUS
“shall not elect” more than a stated number of Directors,
in contrast to other cases that held the opposite way, but
which were based on a “shall not control” prohibition.
WRONGFULLY-EVICTED
CO-OP
SHAREHOLDER
NOT ENTITLED TO $89,000 IN ATTORNEYS FEES
SOUGHT, SINCE THAT SUM EXCEEDED THE COURT’S
JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT
CO-OP ENTITLED TO EVICT OBJECTIONABLE
SHAREHOLDER AND FAMILY, UNDER “PULLMAN”
Saccheri v. Cathedral Properties Corp. Appellate Term, 2nd
Department
1855 7th Avenue Housing Development Fund v. Wigfall Civil
Court, New York County
CONDO PURCHASER NOT ENTITLED TO RESCIND
CONTRACT BECAUSE WINDOW LAYOUT DIFFERED
FROM FLOOR PLAN DEPICTION
Rozina v. Casa 74th Development LLC Appellate Division,
1st Department
COMMENT | The Court relied on disclaimers in the purchase
agreement. The Court also awarded the sponsor attorneys’
fees under the contract.
CO-OP BOARD ORDERED TO PERMIT SHAREHOLDER
TO INSTALL SMALL EXTERIOR HVAC SYSTEM AND
RELOCATE CONDUIT IN BATHROOM
Kaplan v. Park South Tenants Corp. Supreme Court, New
York County
COMMENT | The Court held that this cardiac-condition
shareholder’s proposed installations were de minimis and
would not adversely affect any other resident in the building,
so the Board’s attempt to stop them was unreasonable, and
not protected by the business judgment rule.
6
COMMENT | The Court noted that the co-op had followed its
own procedures scrupulously, including documenting more
than 700 instances of objectionable conduct.
TENANT’S
MOLD-RELATED
CLAIMS
AGAINST
LANDLORD DISMISSED, BECAUSE TENANT AND HER
EXPERT FAILED TO PROVE ACTUAL CAUSATION BY
MOLD OF HER INJURIES
Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC New York State Court
of Appeals
COMMENT | While not involving a co-op or condo, this
decision is still very instructive, as it sets the standards that
must be satisfied for mold (and, presumably, other toxic
substance) claims to survive dismissal.
CONDO BOARD CANNOT
CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
SUE
SPONSOR
OVER
Board of Managers of Soho North 267 W. 124th Street
Condominium v. NW 124 LLC Appellate Division, 1st
Department