Cooperatives & Condominiums

Non-Judicial Sale Enjoined

Robinson v. Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh

NYLJ 7/6/05, p. 19, col. 3

Supreme Ct., Kings Cty

(Rivera, J.)

Co-op unit owner sought a preliminary injunction against mortgagee's proposed non-judicial sale of her co-op shares. The court granted the injunction, holding that unit owner was likely to prevail on her claim that she did not owe the amounts on which the sale was predicated.

Unit owner owns the shares associated with a co-op apartment, and mortgagee holds a mortgage on those shares. In 2002 and 2003, the co-operative corporation billed unit owner for a series of small charges as additional rent, allegedly without explaining the basis for these charges. The co-op corporation threatened her with eviction and sale of her shares if she did not pay the charges. Under protest, she paid the charges that had grown to $9297.82, including late charges and attorneys' fees. The unit owner brought an action in Civil Court contending that these monies were wrongfully paid to the co-op corporation. Civil Court dismissed her action. The co-op corporation then demanded more than $8000 in attorneys' fees incurred in defending the action. The co-op corporation characterized these fees as additional maintenance, and then advised mortgagee bank of unit owner's nonpayment of these fees. The bank then paid the amount demanded and advised unit owner that it had scheduled a non-judicial foreclosure sale of her co-op shares as a result of unit owner's default in its mortgage obligation. The unit owner then brought this action for a preliminary injunction.

In awarding unit owner the preliminary injunction, the court acknowledged that it had no appellate authority over the Civil Court's determination. The court nevertheless concluded that the co-op corporation was precluded from seeking attorneys fees because the co-op corporation should have made that claim in the original action brought by unit owner. Moreover, the court noted that unit owner still had no explanation for the original additional maintenance. As a result, the court concluded that the equities balanced in unit owner's favor, and the court granted the preliminary injunction. The court observed that the mortgagee would have a remedy against the co-op corporation if the court concluded that the monies it paid to the corporation were improperly paid.

Non-Judicial Sale Enjoined

Robinson v. Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh

NYLJ 7/6/05, p. 19, col. 3

Supreme Ct., Kings Cty

(Rivera, J.)

Co-op unit owner sought a preliminary injunction against mortgagee's proposed non-judicial sale of her co-op shares. The court granted the injunction, holding that unit owner was likely to prevail on her claim that she did not owe the amounts on which the sale was predicated.

Unit owner owns the shares associated with a co-op apartment, and mortgagee holds a mortgage on those shares. In 2002 and 2003, the co-operative corporation billed unit owner for a series of small charges as additional rent, allegedly without explaining the basis for these charges. The co-op corporation threatened her with eviction and sale of her shares if she did not pay the charges. Under protest, she paid the charges that had grown to $9297.82, including late charges and attorneys' fees. The unit owner brought an action in Civil Court contending that these monies were wrongfully paid to the co-op corporation. Civil Court dismissed her action. The co-op corporation then demanded more than $8000 in attorneys' fees incurred in defending the action. The co-op corporation characterized these fees as additional maintenance, and then advised mortgagee bank of unit owner's nonpayment of these fees. The bank then paid the amount demanded and advised unit owner that it had scheduled a non-judicial foreclosure sale of her co-op shares as a result of unit owner's default in its mortgage obligation. The unit owner then brought this action for a preliminary injunction.

In awarding unit owner the preliminary injunction, the court acknowledged that it had no appellate authority over the Civil Court's determination. The court nevertheless concluded that the co-op corporation was precluded from seeking attorneys fees because the co-op corporation should have made that claim in the original action brought by unit owner. Moreover, the court noted that unit owner still had no explanation for the original additional maintenance. As a result, the court concluded that the equities balanced in unit owner's favor, and the court granted the preliminary injunction. The court observed that the mortgagee would have a remedy against the co-op corporation if the court concluded that the monies it paid to the corporation were improperly paid.