Cooperatives & Condominiums

Condominium Must Permit Inspection of Records

Pastrana v. Cutler

NYLJ 3/14/14, p. 25, col. 5

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an action by condominium unit owners for a judgment declaring that they are entitled to inspect the condominium's books and records, the condominium board appealed from Supreme Court's order compelling the board to permit inspection of the records and requiring the board to retain an independent organization to conduct a new board election. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Supreme Court had plenary power to issue its order even if the court's order might deviate from the terms of the condominium's bylaws.

In October 2011, unit owners submitted a petition to the condominium board demanding a special meeting for the purpose of removing current board members and, if they were removed, for the election of replacement board members. The petition stated that, in conformity with the condominium bylaws, 25% of unit owners had signed the petition. The board responded by stating that its legal and accounting professionals had deemed the petition defective. Unit owners then brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief

On Jan. 23, 2012, Supreme Court granted unit owners' motion to compel the board to permit inspection of the condominium's books and records, and to schedule a new election. The board did not appeal, but continued to prevent inspection of records. The board also declined to call a special meeting. On April 17, 2012, in response to subsequent motions by unit owners, the court authorized unit owners to schedule the date of the special meeting and authorized unit owners to retain an independent organization to conduct the election. The board appealed from this April 2012 order.

In affirming, the Appellate Division rejected the board's contention that the court's orders were in contravention of the condominium's bylaws and should not be enforced. The Appellate Division noted that by April 2012, the unappealed January 2012 order had become law of the case, binding in Supreme Court. The court acknowledged that the law of the case doctrine did not bind the Appellate Division, but nevertheless held that Supreme Court's judgment should not be disturbed because the judgment was an appropriate exercise of Supreme Court's plenary power to enforce compliance with its January 2012 order and to fashion a remedy for proper administration of justice.

Condominium Must Permit Inspection of Records

Pastrana v. Cutler

NYLJ 3/14/14, p. 25, col. 5

AppDiv, Second Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an action by condominium unit owners for a judgment declaring that they are entitled to inspect the condominium's books and records, the condominium board appealed from Supreme Court's order compelling the board to permit inspection of the records and requiring the board to retain an independent organization to conduct a new board election. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Supreme Court had plenary power to issue its order even if the court's order might deviate from the terms of the condominium's bylaws.

In October 2011, unit owners submitted a petition to the condominium board demanding a special meeting for the purpose of removing current board members and, if they were removed, for the election of replacement board members. The petition stated that, in conformity with the condominium bylaws, 25% of unit owners had signed the petition. The board responded by stating that its legal and accounting professionals had deemed the petition defective. Unit owners then brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief

On Jan. 23, 2012, Supreme Court granted unit owners' motion to compel the board to permit inspection of the condominium's books and records, and to schedule a new election. The board did not appeal, but continued to prevent inspection of records. The board also declined to call a special meeting. On April 17, 2012, in response to subsequent motions by unit owners, the court authorized unit owners to schedule the date of the special meeting and authorized unit owners to retain an independent organization to conduct the election. The board appealed from this April 2012 order.

In affirming, the Appellate Division rejected the board's contention that the court's orders were in contravention of the condominium's bylaws and should not be enforced. The Appellate Division noted that by April 2012, the unappealed January 2012 order had become law of the case, binding in Supreme Court. The court acknowledged that the law of the case doctrine did not bind the Appellate Division, but nevertheless held that Supreme Court's judgment should not be disturbed because the judgment was an appropriate exercise of Supreme Court's plenary power to enforce compliance with its January 2012 order and to fashion a remedy for proper administration of justice.