Cooperatives & Condominiums

'

Condominium Board Must Provide Information to Unit Owners

Pomerance v. McGrath

NYLJ 3/11/13, p. 19, col. 3

AppDiv, First Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an action by unit owner against a condominium association, unit owner appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of one of her causes of action and denial of its motion to examine the condominium's books and records. The Appellate Division modified to grant unit owner's motion to the extent of requiring the condominium to provide contact information for all other unit owners.

In connection with elections to the condominium board, unit owner sought to examine the books and records of the condominium, but the board denied him access. Unit owner then brought this action. Supreme Court dismissed one of her causes of action entirely, dismissed two others with leave to replead, and denied her motion to examine books and records.

In modifying, the Appellate Division focused on the motion to inspect. The court noted that under Business Corporation Law section 624(b), co-op shareholders would be entitled to the names and addresses of other shareholders in connection with an election. The court then concluded that the rights of a shareholder were not dependent on the statute, but existed at common law. While acknowledging that condominium unit owners are not shareholders because the condominium is an unincorporated association governed by Real Property Law (RPL) article 9-b, the court held that the rationale for making names and addresses available to co-op shareholders at common law applied equally to condominium unit owners. The court then held that the fact that RPL section 339-w gives a unit owner the right to examine certain documents does not establish a legislative intent to deny unit owners the right to examine other documents that would have been available at common law. In particular, the court cited legislative history indicating that the condominium law was to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes, one of which was to encourage condominium ownership. As a result, the court directed the board to provide unit owner with contact information for other unit owners. The court did not reach the merits of Supreme Court's dismissals with leave to replead, noting that unit owner had filed amended complaints that superseded the original complaint.

'

'

Condominium Board Must Provide Information to Unit Owners

Pomerance v. McGrath

NYLJ 3/11/13, p. 19, col. 3

AppDiv, First Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an action by unit owner against a condominium association, unit owner appealed from Supreme Court's dismissal of one of her causes of action and denial of its motion to examine the condominium's books and records. The Appellate Division modified to grant unit owner's motion to the extent of requiring the condominium to provide contact information for all other unit owners.

In connection with elections to the condominium board, unit owner sought to examine the books and records of the condominium, but the board denied him access. Unit owner then brought this action. Supreme Court dismissed one of her causes of action entirely, dismissed two others with leave to replead, and denied her motion to examine books and records.

In modifying, the Appellate Division focused on the motion to inspect. The court noted that under Business Corporation Law section 624(b), co-op shareholders would be entitled to the names and addresses of other shareholders in connection with an election. The court then concluded that the rights of a shareholder were not dependent on the statute, but existed at common law. While acknowledging that condominium unit owners are not shareholders because the condominium is an unincorporated association governed by Real Property Law (RPL) article 9-b, the court held that the rationale for making names and addresses available to co-op shareholders at common law applied equally to condominium unit owners. The court then held that the fact that RPL section 339-w gives a unit owner the right to examine certain documents does not establish a legislative intent to deny unit owners the right to examine other documents that would have been available at common law. In particular, the court cited legislative history indicating that the condominium law was to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes, one of which was to encourage condominium ownership. As a result, the court directed the board to provide unit owner with contact information for other unit owners. The court did not reach the merits of Supreme Court's dismissals with leave to replead, noting that unit owner had filed amended complaints that superseded the original complaint.

'