Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cooperatives & Condominiums
Disabled Shareholder Entitled to Extension of Time Limit Matter of Steinberg v. North Shore Towers Apartments, Inc. NYLJ 4/14/17, p. 24, col. 6 AppDiv, Second Dept. (memorandum opinion)
In a disabled co-op shareholder's article 78 proceeding challenging a State Division of Human Rights determination dismissing her administrative complaint against the co-op corporation, the co-op corporation and the Division of Human Rights appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Division's determination was arbitrary and capricious.
The co-op's rules require that shareholders seeking to alter their apartment complete an alteration agreement providing that all alterations will be completed within 90 days from the start date. Shareholder, who suffers from ADHD and a sleep disorder, presented the co-op board with a letter from her doctor indicating that her disorder prevents her from completing tasks within strict time limits. When the co-op board failed to provide shareholder with an accommodation from its 90-day rule, shareholder filed a complaint with the Division, alleging a violation of Executive Law section 296. In dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause, the Division found as a fact that shareholder had refused to agree to any time limitation, and that renovations have been ongoing since 2003. When shareholder brought this article 78 proceeding, Supreme Court concluded that the Division's determination was made without regard to the facts, and was arbitrary and capricious.
In affirming, the Appellate Division concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support the Division's determination that shareholder had refused to agree to any time limitation, citing evidence that shareholder's lawyer had proposed that shareholder be permitted three 90-day periods to complete the work. The court also noted that the determination that work has been ongoing since 2003 was also without support in the record, because the apartment had been empty for long periods of time after the death of shareholder's mother, who had made the initial application for renovations. Giving credence to shareholder's version of the events, there was evidence of discrimination by failing to make reasonable accommodation. As a result, the court remitted the proceeding to the Division for further proceedings.
Unit Owners Have Exclusive Right to Roof Terrace Rose v. 115 Tenants Corp. NYLJ 5/15/17, p. 19, col. 6 AppDiv, First Dept. (memorandum opinion)
In co-op unit owners' action for a judgment declaring that owners enjoyed an exclusive right to use a portion of the building's rooftop terrace, the co-op corporation appealed from Supreme Court's grant of unit owners' summary judgment motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, relying on language in the proprietary lease.
The co-op corporation took the position that unit owners, who occupy a penthouse apartment, had an exclusive right to use only 400 square feet of the rooftop terrace, citing a 1979 amendment to the offering plan. The Appellate Division, however, concluded that the corporation's reliance on that amendment was misplaced, because the 400 square feet pertained only to a potential penthouse addition. The court concluded that the language of the original offering plan and proprietary lease conveyed to unit owners an exclusive right to use and enjoy the rooftop terrace appurtenant to their apartment.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.