Category Archives: Co-Ops

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Was the Request Reasonable? And Serving a Legitimate Corporate Purpose?

Unit owners at residential coops have both statutory and common law right rights to inspect corporate books and records. But, as a recent case illustrates, that right is not without limits. And that right may be abrogated where the demand is improperly motivated, on the one hand, and/or otherwise unreasonable, on the other.

James E. Cayne sought to compel 510 Park Avenue Corporation, a residential cooperative, to comply with his demand to inspect the coop’s books and records pursuant to New York Business Corporation Law § 624 and the common law of the State of New York.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

The Business Judgment Rule is familiar legal scripture that is often ritually invoked as a defense to claims by residential condo/coop unit owners against their boards of managers/directors. But, as a recent case illustrates, the Rule only applies if, in fact, a “business” judgment is involved.

Ayoka Foster sued 219-229 W.144th St. HDFC and members of the Board to receive the shares of stock to apartment six, as a beneficiary of Margie McCray, her mother, through decedent McCray’s Last Will and Testament.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Residential cooperative living presents foreseeable “nuisance” challenges from contiguous neighbors, in general, and from people living directly above, in particular. But, as a recent case illustrates, not every annoyance—no matter how hard the facts—leads to injunctive or other relief.

Steven Dubin sought a Court order directing his upstairs neighbor, Brian Glasses, to cease his nuisance activities, to comply with their coops house rules, and to refrain from activities that deprived Dubin of the quiet enjoyment of his home. Glasser moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that there was a pending proceeding in Housing Court, and the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Access to and use of the roof of a residential coop is a much sought, cherished, and protected amenity. As a recent case illustrates, a claim to “exclusive” enjoyment of space on a roof can result in complicated and contentious litigation.

Nina Neivens brought an action individually and as temporary administrator for the Estate of Mary Neivens, her late mother, against 24-26 E. 93 Apts. Corp., a residential coop. She sought declarations regarding her rights to exclusive use of the roof of the coop’s building as the proprietary lessee of apartments 10AB and 10CD.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

It is axiomatic that, as night follows day, the Business Judgment Rules protects the Board of a residential coop from corporate and personal liability for good faith decisions made in the ordinary course of the coop’s affairs. But does it always? As a recent case illustrates, exoneration is not automatic where the proprietary lease expressly sets forth a different and higher standard.

Stuart B. Kotler, as Executor of the Estate of Gail Lowe Haymes, owned 510 shares 979 Corporation, a residential coop, allocated to apartment 2/3… Kotler wanted the co-op to transfer the shares and proprietary lease to the decedent’s daughter, Elizabeth Haymes Hempin. The co-op refused to approve the transfer. Kotler sued. The coop moved to dismiss.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Roof access and use are among the most sought after, valuable, and fiercely protected amenities of residential coop living. As a recent case illustrates, litigation can go “nuclear” when roof rights are impacted by an imposing change.

Soho Plaza is a 34-unit “pre-war” coop that installed an eight-ton central (“chiller”) air conditioning unit on the roof directly above the penthouse owned by Richard and Cecilia Burbridge– who contended that the chiller made leaks into the penthouse significantly worse.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Contiguous neighbors often get into disputes concerning protection or invasion of their property lines and rights. But, as a recent case illustrates, the legal battle can reach great heights when the claims are between the disputatious owners of neighboring outdoor terraces.

Nocola W. Cicchetti sued TRNC Associates Ltd. and 333 East 46th St. Apartment Corp. for trespass, breach of contract, and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from a dispute over the placement of a partition wall between two outdoor apartment terraces. TRNC and the coop moved to dismiss.

Copyright by, and republished with permission of, Habitat Magazine.

The brawl begins. Back in 2017, the actors Justin Theroux and his then-wife Jennifer Aniston got approval from their Greenwich Village co-op board to combine their apartment with the newly acquired apartment next door, then embark on a $1 million renovation of the expanded space. But the downstairs neighbors, Norman and Barbara Rescinow, complained about excessive noise from the renovation work. A war of words erupted – including charges of harassment, voyeurism, and animal and spousal cruelty, plus a dispute over access to the shared roof deck. Eventually the brawl wound up in court, where a judge placed a restraining order on Norman Rescinow, forbidding him from trespassing on Theroux’s property or from using “abusive language” when addressing the co-op board or potential witnesses in the mushrooming litigation.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

The Business Judgment Rule was put to the test in a recent case where Sharie Graham, the owner of a co-op apartment on the Upper East Side, charged the Board with bad faith in refusing to approve the sale of her unit to the Soffens, two physicians from New Jersey, for use as a pied a terre.

Graham sued her 420 East 72nd Street residential cooperative apartment building’s Board of Directors for refusing to approve proposed buyers of her unit. The main issue for trial was whether the Board acted in bad faith– because the proprietary lease for the coop provided that the Board could refuse to approve a sale for “any reason and no reason”. Both sides conceded, however, that the clause could not insulate the Board from decisions involving bad faith. After a trial, the Court found that Graham proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Board acted in bad faith.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

A shareholder in a cooperative apartment building on the Upper West Side demolished a deck constructed by an upstairs neighbor because the deck allegedly encroached on his property.

The deck had been in place undisturbed for 25 years; the Co-op board directed it not be destroyed; and the demolition of the deck created a dangerous condition by leaving his neighbor with an unprotected back door opening to a steep drop to the ground below.

The unsurprising answer was that he was not permitted to exercise the self-help remedy of demolishing the deck. His proper course was to seek relief from the courts or other governmental authorities, not to administer what the Court called “frontier justice”.