Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Cooperatives and Condominiums

By ssalkin
March 01, 2019
|

Right to Rooftop Space

Huyck v. 171 Tenants Corp. NYLJ 12/4/18, p. 21, col. 1 Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty (Kalish, J.)

In an action by co-op unit owners for a judgment declaring that they have an exclusive right to the roof terraced adjacent to their apartment, unit owners moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that the proprietary lease established unit owners' exclusive right to the rooftop space.

Unit owners purchased a penthouse apartment in 1999 and have occupied it as part-time residents ever since. The apartment adjoins the northern half of the building's roof space; no other apartment adjoins that space, and the only other access is through a door with a sign stating “Emergency Exit Only. Alarm will Sound. Push Here.” When unit owners purchased the apartment, they spent $100,000 to renovate the apartment. The renovations were done pursuant to an agreement with the co-op corporation. On sporadic occasions, the doorman gave the key to the roof deck to other unit owners, generally when the owner of the penthouse apartment was not at home. When someone was at home, the doorman would call up before sending anyone to the roof deck. In 2016, however, the co-op corporation placed a table on the roof deck, and the following year, the corporation destroyed a rock garden tended by unit owners Unit owners then brought this action seeking declaratory relief.

In awarding summary judgment to unit owners, the court relied on the language of the proprietary lease, which provides that “if the apartment includes … a portion of the roof adjoining a penthouse, the Lessee shall have and enjoy the exclusive use of … that portion of the roof appurtenant to the penthouse ….” The court noted that other courts have construed the same language to give an exclusive use right to the unit owner whose apartment adjoins the roof. The court also rejected the argument that unit owners had waived their exclusive right by allowing other units owners to use the deck, concluding that unit owners had not abandoned their exclusive right to use the space. The court also held that the other buildings resident had not established an adverse possession claim.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

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 Image

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 Image

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.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.