Cooperatives & Condominiums

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.