LEGAL TALK

David Berkey, partner at Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, joins Paula Chin of Habitat Magazine to discuss how co-op and condo boards can use injunctions to enforce rules and maintain community standards. Learn about the legal mechanisms boards can employ when default notices and fines fail, including compelling tenants to address issues like hoarding or dangerous behavior, and preventing unauthorized activities that threaten building safety and community harmony.

Carol Ott of Habitat Magazine discusses board member liability with Leni Morrison Cummins, partner at Cozen O'Connor. Cummins explains that volunteer board members face real liability risks and need proper protection through well-drafted indemnification clauses. She highlights common pitfalls in these clauses, including insufficient coverage for tort claims and pre-litigation proceedings. Cummins advises board members to review their indemnification language with counsel, ensure they have adequate D&O insurance, and consider bylaw amendments if coverage is inadequate. She notes differences between co-op and condo liability protections and recommends prospective board members verify their coverage before joining.

Volunteering for your building's board seems like a great way to serve your community—until you realize you might be personally liable for the board's decisions. Often overlooked are indemnification clauses, says Leni Morrison Cummins, Member, Cozen O'Connor. This protection isn’t guaranteed and there are surprising "pitfalls" of indemnification clauses that leave board members vulnerable, particularly in condominiums where protection isn't built into law as it is (partially) for cooperatives. In this interview, conducted by Habitat Magazine’s Carol Ott, Cummins highlights several alarming gaps in typical indemnification language.

Emily Myers of Habitat Magazine discusses bylaw governance with Carl Finger, principal at the law firm Finger and Finger. Finger outlines how bylaws serve as a corporate operations roadmap and explains the risks of improper adherence, from minor scheduling issues to major legal challenges. He highlights the business judgment rule's protection of board decisions—when bylaws are followed—and shares insights from the Cohan v. Board of Directors case. Finger advises boards to stay familiar with bylaws, consult legal professionals on complex matters, and focus on updating house rules for daily governance.

In this episode, attorney Michael Savino of Braverman Greenspun shares with Habitat's Paula Chin essential guidance for co-op and condo board directors dealing with construction defects in new buildings. The conversation provides a clear roadmap for boards to protect their interests when issues arise after a sponsor hands over control.
Savino explains that while minor problems can often be addressed through punch lists, major defects—particularly in building systems like plumbing and facades—require swift and methodical action. He emphasizes that these issues can be both costly and potentially dangerous to residents and passersby if left unaddressed.

Navigating building violations can be tricky for co-op and condo boards, especially when it comes to determining responsibility for corrections. In this enlightening discussion with attorney Brandon James of Borah Goldstein, board directors will learn crucial guidelines for managing violations effectively and avoiding costly mistakes. Habitat's Paula Chin conducts the interview. 
James breaks down the fundamental "rule of thumb" - unit owners and shareholders are typically responsible for conditions inside their apartments, while boards handle common area issues. However, there are important exceptions, such as lead paint violations and problems stemming from common area issues like facade leaks causing interior mold.
Key takeaways:
• Even when violations are the unit owner's responsibility, notices typically go to the building first - making it critical for boards to promptly notify and follow up with residents responsible for corrections
• Failing to monitor and address violations can have severe consequences, including massive financial penalties, difficulty refinancing, and damage to the building's reputation - one example cited showed a 25-unit building that accumulated over $300,000 in violation penalties
• During refinancing, most lenders require buildings to cure outstanding violations within six months of closing, putting boards under pressure to resolve backlogged issues quickly
• Boards can generally recover violation-related costs from responsible unit owners through indemnification clauses, but this becomes much more difficult if too much time passes between the violation and enforcement
The episode emphasizes that proactive monitoring and prompt attention to violations, even minor ones, is essential for maintaining both building safety and financial health. Letting violations accumulate can create a snowball effect that impacts everything from property values to residents' quality of life.

In this episode of Legal Talk, Jennifer Stewart, a partner at the law firm Smith Buss and Jacobs, explains to Habitat's Emily Myers how critical the importance of understanding statutes of limitations for co-op and condo board directors is. The discussion reveals how timing can make or break a board's ability to pursue legal claims or defend against them.
Stewart emphasizes that proactive planning and early legal consultation are essential for protecting a building's interests. Through real-world examples, she illustrates how different types of claims have varying time limits – from one-year warranty claims to six-year breach of contract windows. She shares particularly sobering stories of boards who waited too long to act, leading to costly and complicated legal battles that could have been avoided with earlier intervention.
Key takeaways for board directors:
• Different claims have different deadlines: Construction defects might involve multiple time limits – one year for warranties, three years for professional malpractice, and six years for breach of contract claims.
• Corporate action challenges (like disputed elections or new house rules) have a surprisingly short four-month statute of limitations for shareholders or unit owners to file suit.
• While there are creative legal strategies to extend deadlines (like tolling or fraud claims), these approaches are more expensive and complex than acting within the original time frame.
• A quick consultation with counsel when issues first arise – even before deciding to pursue legal action – helps boards understand their timeline for making decisions and preserving their rights.
Stewart's practical advice boils down to a simple principle: when in doubt about potential claims, have a brief conversation with counsel early on. This small step can save boards significant headaches and legal expenses down the road.

Tracy Peterson, a partner at the law firm Braverman Greenspun, joins Habitat's Paula Chin for an essential discussion on how co-op and condo boards should handle resident requests for information and documents about fellow residents. Peterson draws from her extensive experience to explain when boards must share information, what they can protect, and how to avoid unnecessary litigation.
Board directors will gain practical insights into:
* The broad rights shareholders and unit owners have to access building records and documents, particularly during election seasons when candidates need to communicate with fellow residents

* How boards can protect sensitive information by using confidentiality agreements, which most requesting parties are willing to sign

* Why boards should proactively survey residents annually about their preferences for sharing contact information, creating clear guidelines before requests arise

* The importance of the "good faith" requirement - boards can deny requests that appear to be fishing expeditions without specific purposes, but should consult counsel before doing so
Peterson emphasizes that boards often make the mistake of immediately denying information requests, which can create adversarial relationships and lead to lawsuits. Instead, she recommends consulting with legal counsel to understand what must be shared under the Business Corporation Law, which applies to both co-ops and condos. With proper guidance and the strategic use of confidentiality agreements, boards can maintain transparency while protecting resident privacy.

Enforcing pet policies in co-ops and condos can feel like walking through a legal minefield. From tight enforcement deadlines to complex accommodations for service and emotional support animals, board directors face high-stakes decisions that could lead to costly litigation if mishandled.
Attorney Kenneth Finger, a member of the law firm Finger & Finger, offers board directors essential insights into navigating the complex intersection of pet policies and legal requirements in New York co-ops and condos. The conversation reveals critical timing requirements for enforcing no-pet policies and explores the nuanced landscape of service animals and emotional support animals (ESAs). Habitat's Emily Myers conducts the interview.
Key takeaways for board directors:
* The 90-day rule is absolute: Boards must take court action within 90 days of discovering an unauthorized pet, or they permanently waive their right to enforce the no-pet policy for that animal's lifetime. 
* Service animals vs. ESAs have different standards: While service dogs (which must be specially trained) cannot be refused, emotional support animals require more documentation but can be any species. However, boards cannot restrict size or breed in either case.
* Documentation requirements for ESAs should be thorough: Boards can request vaccination records, licensing, and legitimate medical documentation. They can challenge questionable medical certifications but should be prepared for potential human rights complaints.
* Enforcement carries financial risks: Challenging ESA requests can lead to expensive litigation, insurance complications, and potential damages if the board loses. Boards must carefully weigh these costs against enforcement benefits.

Living in close quarters with neighbors who blast music at 3 AM, cook pungent meals, or hoard items can turn apartment living into a nightmare. But when do everyday annoyances cross the line into legal nuisances, and how should co-op and condo boards respond? Stewart Wurtzel, member of Tane Waterman & Wurtzel, offers practical guidance on investigating complaints, understanding legal standards, and protecting both resident rights and building harmony – before matters escalate into lawsuits. Habitat’s Emily Myers conducts the interview.

Key takeaways for board directors:

* The legal threshold for "nuisance" requires persistent, egregious conduct that threatens health, safety, or comfort - not just occasional annoyances. Normal city living sounds like television at regular volume or footsteps are generally not considered unreasonable.

* Boards have a duty to investigate complaints but must balance this obligation carefully. Simply accepting complaints at face value and sending warning letters without investigation can create unnecessary conflicts between residents.

* Documentation is crucial - encourage complainants to maintain detailed logs of disturbances, including timing, frequency, and duration. Multiple complaints from different residents typically carry more weight than isolated complaints.

* When pursuing legal action, boards must ensure complaining residents are willing to testify in court. Without their cooperation, the board risks losing the case and potentially being responsible for the defendant's legal fees.

* Different remedies exist for co-ops versus condos: co-ops can pursue eviction proceedings, while condos must seek injunctive relief through Supreme Court. However, the underlying analysis of what constitutes a nuisance remains largely the same.