Category Archives: Condominiums

Copyright by, and published with permission of, Habitat Magazine

Unit-owners at the Newswalk condominium in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn – a repurposed former Daily News printing plant – are no strangers to strife. When the first unit-owners moved in after the 2002 conversion, they were shocked by construction so slipshod that many of the “luxury” apartments were barely habitable. The condo board sued the developer, Shaya Boymelgreen, for $10 million. A decade later, Boymelgreen agreed to pay an $875,000 settlement and hand over ownership of the building’s retail unit and laundry space. The condominium survived and thrived. 

But strife has returned to the Newswalk. Today, instead of unit-owners vs. developer, it’s neighbor vs. neighbor. Marina Voron and George Argiris, the owners of unit 515, wanted to upgrade their bathroom. They sought an order directing the condo board, its management company, Choice New York, and their downstairs neighbors, Liliana Ariztizabal and Tony Pimienta, to give their plumber and contractor access to common plumbing and other  elements through unit 415. The former printing plant is a concrete structure, and the renovators needed access to plumbing lines in the concrete slab that forms the floor of unit 515 and the ceiling of unit 415.

Originally published on the SGR Blog.

A Central Park West condominium sued the owner of a first floor unit and her son for breach of contract and nuisance. The Board wanted to enjoin them from smoking marijuana and making excessive noise in their unit. At the outset, the Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited defendants from smoking marijuana and permitting marijuana smoke and excessively loud noises from infiltrating into the common areas and other units of the condominium. And several months later the Court addressed the application for a permanent injunction.

Continue reading →

Copyright by, and republished with permission of, Habitat Magazine.

The owner of the cellar unit in a small Tribeca condominium decided to sell the unit, which, under the condominium’s certificate of occupancy (C of O), could be used only for storage or as a boiler room. A potential buyer planned to turn the space into a showroom for her business. The seller promised her that, by the time of closing, he would have all approvals required to change the C of O to allow for the unit’s use as a showroom – or the deal was off.

(A C of O must be changed when a space is altered in a way that will change the use, egress, or type of occupancy.)

The sale contract stated: “In the event this application [for a new C of O] is unsuccessful for any reason whatsoever, Seller shall return Purchaser’s deposit made hereunder, at which time this contract shall be deemed null and void, with neither party having any rights or obligations vis-à-vis the other.”

Continue reading →

Copyright by, and republished with permission of, Habitat Magazine.

The board at a 10-unit Tribeca building has learned how difficult it can be for a condominium to fund litigation. The board decided to sue the condominium’s sponsor, claiming that the sponsor failed to reveal physical defects in the building, failed to fund the reserve fund as required, and allowed one of its principals, the owner of the building’s commercial space, to cause structural damage to the building. In its suit, the board claimed unit-owners faced “staggering” costs to repair existing damage and prevent further damage.

Continue reading →

Featuring:

 Condominium – a residential building in Manhattan.

P360 Spaces LLC – the owner of a commercial space in the Condominium (the “Front Unit”)

Patricia and Darren Orlando – the owners of a residential space in the Condominium (the “Back Unit”)

Ronnie Peters – the President and managing member of P360 Spaces LLC

 The Mystery:

The original (2003) Declaration of Condominium stated that the percentage interest of each unit was based upon “floor space and the availability of common elements for exclusive and shared use”.  The Declaration also stated that there were no “limited common elements” appurtenant to the Back Unit.

And the Offering Plan stated that use of the Basement as a limited common element was specifically allotted to the Front Unit.

Who had the right to use the 1,190 square feet of cellar/basement space in the Condominium (the “Basement”)?

Act I: Continue reading →