Co-Op Board Improperly Discriminated Based on Disability
Hirschmann v. Hassopayannes
NYLJ 6/5/08, p. 35, col. 5
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an action by co-op purchaser for an injunction requiring a co-op board and its members to reinstate the approval of purchaser's application to purchase, the co-op and its members appealed from the Supreme Court's grant of purchaser's summary judgment motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the co-op had failed to present a nondiscriminatory reason for revoking its approval of the buyer.
At co-op purchaser's board interview, the board informed him of the co-op's rules, including a prohibition against washers and dryers in apartments. Purchaser informed the board that he had no problem with that rule. The board approved the purchase. Just before closing, purchaser informed the co-op's managing agent that his disability required him to have a washer/dryer in his apartment. The board then rescinded its approval of buyer's purchase application. Purchaser then brought this action to enjoin the co-op board to reinstate its approval of the purchase. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to purchaser, and the co-op board appealed.
In affirming, the Appellate Division emphasized that the purchaser was not required to disclose, and the co-op was not permitted to inquire into, the buyer's disability and need for reasonable accommodation. As a result, the buyer did not act wrongfully in failing to ask for a washer and dryer at the board interview. The co-op board could not, therefore, rely on buyer's alleged dishonest behavior as a basis for rescinding its approval. Because the co-op board could articulate no other non-discriminatory basis for revoking its approval, the purchaser was entitled to summary judgment.
Issues of Fact Preclude Sponsor's Summary Judgment Motion in Claim for Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Sorenson v. Bridge Capital Corp.
NYLJ 6/12/08, p. 36, col. 2
AppDiv, First Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an action by condominium purchaser against sponsor for fraud and breach of contract, purchaser appealed from the Supreme Court's award of summary judgment to sponsor. The Appellate Division modified to reinstate the breach of contract claim, holding that there were material issues of fact about whether sponsor had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by signing agreements with a present intention to invoke the agreement's termination provisions.
The contract for purchase three units in a building undergoing condominium conversion gave the sponsor a right to terminate the agreements if the parties could not reach a mutual understanding on the excess costs of building the three units to include features different from the specifications provided in the offering plan. Purchaser, a lawyer, submitted architectural plans, but the parties did not reach agreement on the reasonable excess cost attributable to purchaser's specifications. When the purchaser offered to forgo his plans for individualized build-out in favor of the specifications provided in the offering plan, sponsor terminated the agreements. Purchaser then brought this action, alleging fraud and breach of contract. The Supreme Court awarded summary judgment to sponsor.
In modifying, the Appellate Division first agreed that the Supreme Court had properly dismissed purchaser's claim that the sponsor had fraudulently added language to the contract outside of purchaser's presence. The court noted that purchaser had adequate opportunity to read the contract, and held that seller's alleged representations that the disputed provisions had not been changed could not, therefore, serve as the basis for a fraud claim. The Appellate Division held, however, that there were questions of fact about whether sponsor had lured purchaser into signing the contracts with termination provisions without any expectation of performing the contracts. Purchaser had alleged that sponsor needed signed contracts to obtain financing for the conversion, but intended to renege on those contracts (and sell for higher prices) as soon as the financing was obtained. The court noted that the record contained evidence to support purchaser's contentions that sponsor had failed to negotiate in good faith to reach agreement on the reasonable excess cost attributable to purchaser's build-out specifications, making summary judgment inappropriate on purchaser's claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
