Category Archives: Co-Ops

Did Court Properly Grant Preliminary Injunction For Alleged Nuisance?

In 2015, Michael Bilgrei entered into a proprietary lease for a unit in a cooperative apartment complex owned and operated by North Shore Towers Apts. He alleged that he had heard persistent vibrations and humming noises in his apartment since February 2021. In November 2021, Bilgrei commenced an action for an injunction directing NST to identify the source of the alleged vibrations and noise and to permanently abate them.

Bilgrie moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining NST “from permitting the nuisance caused by excessive noise and vibration” in his apartment and directing NST “to undertake such measures as are necessary to completely and permanently abate the nuisance.” NST opposed the motion. Supreme Court granted the motion, enjoined NST from permitting the vibrations and noise to continue, and directed NST to undertake measures to permanently abate the vibrations and noise. NST appealed.

Were Breach of Contract & BCL Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations?

Alison Fricke and others  were shareholders in Beauchamp Gardens Owners Corp., a cooperative corporation, and the owners of separate apartments in the cooperative complex. On February 17, 2020, they commenced an action alleging that BGOC  breached its contract with them and violated Business Corporation Law § 720 by enacting certain sublet policies which limited the number of years shareholders could sublet their apartments and imposed an annual sublet fee. The challenged policies became effective on January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2017.

BGOC subsequently moved to dismiss the causes of action alleging breach of contract and violation of Business Corporation Law § 720 as time-barred. Supreme Court granted those branches of the motion. Fricke and the others appealed

Did Board Unreasonably Withold Consent/ Breach Fiduciary Duty?

Heykal Properties, LLC, a commercial tenant of Unit 2S in a commercial cooperative building, assert causes of action against the board of 450 West 31^St. Owners Corp. and board member Karen Atta for breach of fiduciary duty in rejecting Heykal’s’ proposals to install an HVAC on an outdoor space adjacent to the leased unit. The motion by the board and Atta for summary judgment was denied. And they appealed.

The proprietary lease provided that, to make alterations to a unit, a lessee must first obtain the written consent of the lessor, “which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.” Where a “reasonableness” standard is imposed, the actions of the board and its members must be legitimately related to the welfare of the cooperative. The board contended that Heykal’s alteration plans were reasonably rejected because the plans sought to use a common element of the building for the tenant’s own exclusive use, and there were concerns about whether the space was structurally sound for the proposed alterations. The board moved for summary judgment..

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Was There Liability for Almost $1M Façade Repair?

The owner of an apartment in a residential co-op has every right to sue the board and managing agent for a perceived breach of the proprietary lease or for breach of fiduciary duty. But sustaining a claim may be easier said than done. And, as recent case illustrates, a shareholder’s claim arising out of an almost one-million-dollar façade repair was tested at the outset by several threshold legal defenses.

Bernard Weinstein, a resident in a cooperative apartment building owned by 12282 Owners’ Corp., asserted claims against the Co-Op’s Board of Directors and against the Co-Op’s managing agent, AKAM Associates, Inc., for failure properly to maintain the exterior of the building. The Co-Op and AKAM moved to dismiss the complaint.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Who Was Liable for Damage to Eighth Floor Unit?

High-rise commercial co-ops necessarily house utilities, pipes, and connections behind closed walls. As a recent case illustrates, where an enclosed pipe in one unit burst and damaged another unit, the Court may be required to navigate a web or relationships and agreements to determine who may be liable for the damage.

Metropolitan Productions, Inc. and Daylight Studio LLC sued Good Light Studio, Inc. and Good Light Studio 2, LLC and sought six million dollars for property damage and loss of income. The claim was the result of a frozen pipe that burst on February 1, 2015 and caused damages to a space occupied by Metro/Daylight on the 8th floor of 450 West 31st Street. Good Light moved for dismissal and/or summary judgment.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Court Adjudicates Panoply of Claims, Counterclaims, and Defenses

Martha Schwartz alleged that 170 West End Owners Corp illegally installed and/or manipulated industrial fans on the roof of the building directly above her apartment. Schwartz was a tenant in apartment 30E at the building, a cooperative governed by Owners Corp.

Schwartz alleged that in 2009 Owners Corp. relocated a certain number of industrial fans directly above and/or near her top-floor apartment, in an attempt to force her out of the building. She alleged that in 2012 Owners Corp. manipulated the fans to direct polluted and freezing air into her apartment, and testified that she witnessed the fans in different locations by visiting the roof on various occasions both before and after 2009. Schwartz alleged that the relocation and manipulation of the fans caused excessive noise, vibrations, and odors in her apartment which continued and that her health declined as a result of these conditions.