Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Co-ops and Condominiums

By Stewart Sterk
February 01, 2021

Shareholder's Failure to Seek Relief During Cure Period Bars Preliminary Injunction

Hargraves v. Tyler Towers Owners Corp. NYLJ 12/4/20, p. 22, col. 1 AppDiv, Second Dept. (memorandum opinion)

In co-op shareholder's action for declaratory and injunctive relief, shareholder appealed from Supreme Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against an auction sale of shareholder's shares. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that shareholder's failure to seek relief during the cure period barred the preliminary injunction.

In 2016, the steam pipes under, around, and above shareholder's apartment began to emit steam, causing damage to the apartment. The following year, shareholder and the co-op agreed that shareholder would temporarily vacate the apartment and that the co-op would make repairs and would make payments to the shareholder during the repairs. The co-op contends that the repairs were completed in May 2018, but shareholder contends that the repairs were still ongoing in July 2018 when water from the apartment above his came pouring through the ceiling, destroying the recently-installed wood floor. In January 2019, the co-op served a notice to cure on shareholder, contending that he was in default of the proprietary lease by failing to make monthly maintenance payments. Shareholder did not cure within the cure period and, on January 30, 2019, the co-op served a notice of termination on shareholder. The co-op subsequently issued a notice of sale indicating that shareholder's unit would be auctioned off on April 3, 2019. On March 29, 2019, shareholder brought this action alleging breach of the warranty of habitability and the proprietary lease, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Supreme Court denied shareholder's motion for a preliminary injunction.

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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark 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.

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.