Category Archives: Condominiums

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

What Standard Applies in Article 78 Proceeding Challenging Decision of Board of Managers?

Proceedings challenging board decisions under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Rule are governed by the test of whether the disputed action was “arbitrary and capricious”. But challenges to the action of members of the boards of residential condominiums are governed by the “business judgment rule”. So which standard governs when a condominium unit owner questions the conduct of the board of managers?  A recent case addresses that question.

Notoya Green, as Trustee of a family trust, sought an Article 78 order: annulling and setting aside, as arbitrary and capricious, the rejection by the Board of Managers of Diamond on Duane Condominium, of her alteration application with respect to the renovation of two units; and  compelling the Board to consent to the requested alterations or deeming that no consent was required under the building’s governing documents.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

A high-rise residential condominium community is a creature of statute, characterized by many unique features that both govern day-to-day affairs, on the one hand, while leading to disputes and litigation, on the other.  So-called “common elements” are the responsibility of the board of managers to maintain and repair.  But, as a recent case involving an improperly-pitched/leak-causing pipe between to units demonstrates, what constitutes a “common element” is often a controverted question of fact.

Lisa Goldberg sued the Madison Square Condominium and George Higgins for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and trespass as a result of recurring leaks in her apartment. The leaks came from the apartment above, which was owned by board member Higgins and Ali Reza Momtaz. Supreme Court granted a motion to dismiss various claims in the complaint. Goldberg appealed.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Joanna Lechowicz sued the Condominium for injuries she allegedly sustained, on March 10, 2014 at approximately 6:25 a.m., when she slipped and fell on snow or ice on the sidewalk abutting 130 Pondfield Road, Bronxville, New York, at or near the property line of 12 Meadow Avenue, Bronxville. Wojcjech Lechowicz sought damages for the alleged loss of consortium arising from Joanna’s accident and injuries.

The Board moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the “storm in progress” rule applied.

A defendant property owner moving for summary judgment in an action predicated upon the presence of snow and/or ice has the initial burden of establishing prima facie that it neither created the snowy or icy condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall nor had actual or constructive notice of such condition. That burden may be satisfied by offering evidence that there was a storm in progress at the time of the accident. If the defendant meets this initial burden, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff’s fall was caused by something other than precipitation from the storm in progress.