Cooperatives & Condominiums

House Rule Declared Unreasonable

Braun v. 941 Park Ave., Inc.

NYLJ 6/12/06, p. 22., col. 1

AppDiv, First Dept.

(3-2 decision; majority opinion by Buckley, P.J; partial dissent by Saxe, J.)

In co-op unit owners' action for a declaratory judgment as to their rights under their proprietary lease, unit owners appealed from the Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and declared a portion of a House Rule unreasonable. Two dissenters would have gone further and declared the entire House Rule unreasonable.

Plaintiff unit owners, the Brauns, own a duplex apartment with upper-level living rooms and lower-level bedrooms. The apartment was originally a mixed residential/professional unit with an entrance to the lower-level professional suite directly from the street, and the entrance to the residential units from an elevator vestibule. Most of the apartments in the building are duplexes, with elevator vestibules that have doors to the lower-level living rooms of one apartment and doors to the upper level bedrooms of another apartment. In 1983, the co-op enacted the disputed House Rule, which provides that elevator vestibules would be 'under the jurisdiction' of the apartment whose lower level opened onto the vestibule. The occupants of the primary unit would be entitled to decorate the vestibule, and would be responsible for cleaning and maintenance. The occupants of the apartment whose upper level opened onto the vestibule would be permitted access, but visitors to that apartment would not be entitled to access without permission of the primary apartment, and occupants of the upper-level apartment would not be entitled to leave umbrellas or other objects in the vestibule, and would not be entitled to receive mail or deliveries. The Brauns' apartment ' alone among the apartments in the building ' has access to an elevator vestibule only from its upper level. Nevertheless, the Brauns' predecessors shared the elevator vestibule with their neighbors without incident.

In 1996, the Moores bought the apartment across the vestibule from the Brauns' apartment, and the Brauns bought their apartment in 1997. The Moores expected that they would be entitled to decorate the vestibule as they wished, and they invoked the House Rule to prevent the Brauns from permitting visitors to use the vestibule, and from storing umbrellas and boots. At the suggestion of the co-op board, the neighbors attempted mediation of their differences, to no avail. Ultimately, the Board modified the House Rule to permit the Brauns to receive guests through the vestibule, but only if accompanied by building staff. The Board concluded that the Moores had an exclusive right to decorate the landing and to store umbrellas and packages at the landing, providing that deliveries for the Brauns would have to be through a service door leading from their kitchen to the service/fire corridor. The Brauns then brought this declaratory judgment action, and the Supreme Court dismissed their complaint.

In reversing, the Appellate Division majority first noted that the parties agreed that the co-op's governing documents required that House Rules be reasonable, and that the business judgment rule was not, therefore, applicable. The majority held that the prohibition on use of the vestibule by the Brauns' guests (except when accompanied by building staff) was unreasonable, noting that the Moores could take a number of steps to alleviate any harm they might suffer if the Brauns' guests were mistakenly to knock on their door. But the majority concluded that, in light of the constricted space on the landing, the House Rule was reasonable with respect to deliveries and storage of umbrellas, strollers, and other items. The dissent would have gone further and would have permitted both unit owners to use the vestibule equally, because the vestibule provided the only 'front door' to each apartment.

House Rule Declared Unreasonable

Braun v. 941 Park Ave., Inc.

NYLJ 6/12/06, p. 22., col. 1

AppDiv, First Dept.

(3-2 decision; majority opinion by Buckley, P.J; partial dissent by Saxe, J.)

In co-op unit owners' action for a declaratory judgment as to their rights under their proprietary lease, unit owners appealed from the Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and declared a portion of a House Rule unreasonable. Two dissenters would have gone further and declared the entire House Rule unreasonable.

Plaintiff unit owners, the Brauns, own a duplex apartment with upper-level living rooms and lower-level bedrooms. The apartment was originally a mixed residential/professional unit with an entrance to the lower-level professional suite directly from the street, and the entrance to the residential units from an elevator vestibule. Most of the apartments in the building are duplexes, with elevator vestibules that have doors to the lower-level living rooms of one apartment and doors to the upper level bedrooms of another apartment. In 1983, the co-op enacted the disputed House Rule, which provides that elevator vestibules would be 'under the jurisdiction' of the apartment whose lower level opened onto the vestibule. The occupants of the primary unit would be entitled to decorate the vestibule, and would be responsible for cleaning and maintenance. The occupants of the apartment whose upper level opened onto the vestibule would be permitted access, but visitors to that apartment would not be entitled to access without permission of the primary apartment, and occupants of the upper-level apartment would not be entitled to leave umbrellas or other objects in the vestibule, and would not be entitled to receive mail or deliveries. The Brauns' apartment ' alone among the apartments in the building ' has access to an elevator vestibule only from its upper level. Nevertheless, the Brauns' predecessors shared the elevator vestibule with their neighbors without incident.

In 1996, the Moores bought the apartment across the vestibule from the Brauns' apartment, and the Brauns bought their apartment in 1997. The Moores expected that they would be entitled to decorate the vestibule as they wished, and they invoked the House Rule to prevent the Brauns from permitting visitors to use the vestibule, and from storing umbrellas and boots. At the suggestion of the co-op board, the neighbors attempted mediation of their differences, to no avail. Ultimately, the Board modified the House Rule to permit the Brauns to receive guests through the vestibule, but only if accompanied by building staff. The Board concluded that the Moores had an exclusive right to decorate the landing and to store umbrellas and packages at the landing, providing that deliveries for the Brauns would have to be through a service door leading from their kitchen to the service/fire corridor. The Brauns then brought this declaratory judgment action, and the Supreme Court dismissed their complaint.

In reversing, the Appellate Division majority first noted that the parties agreed that the co-op's governing documents required that House Rules be reasonable, and that the business judgment rule was not, therefore, applicable. The majority held that the prohibition on use of the vestibule by the Brauns' guests (except when accompanied by building staff) was unreasonable, noting that the Moores could take a number of steps to alleviate any harm they might suffer if the Brauns' guests were mistakenly to knock on their door. But the majority concluded that, in light of the constricted space on the landing, the House Rule was reasonable with respect to deliveries and storage of umbrellas, strollers, and other items. The dissent would have gone further and would have permitted both unit owners to use the vestibule equally, because the vestibule provided the only 'front door' to each apartment.