The Meter is Running
The Habitat Article Archive includes the full text of all of our
magazine articles dating back to 2002. You can view 3 articles per
month for free. (Repeat views of the same article don’t count
against your monthly limit.)
To read more, purchase a print subscription or a daily or yearly All-Access Pass
and get unlimited access to the Archive. Prices start at 1.95.
You've reached your free article limit for this month.
To read this article and gain unlimited access to the Habitat Article
Archive, which includes the full text of all our magazine articles
dating back to 2002, purchase an All-Access Pass.
The co-op board at 1025 Fifth Avenue was right to enforce the rules.
AUTHORDale J. Degenshein, Special Counsel, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
PAGE #pp. 42-43
Boards have the power to enforce rules, even if they don’t exercise the power for many years. That power is protected by a non-waiver provision in the proprietary lease.
We’ve all seen situations where boards can get into trouble. But this is a little bit different. It’s a situation where a board didn’t quite get into trouble, but it also didn’t know its documents and therefore wasn’t able to get everything that it was looking for in the litigation.
This case was decided in 2004 when Michael Horowitz, a co-op shareholder at 1025 Fifth Avenue, was sued by the board. Horowitz had a terrace with a 30-foot awning attached to the building. The awning had been there since 1954, when the building was built. Sometime in the mid-1980s, the board came up with a rule that if you wanted to install air-conditioning, you had to have a through-the-wall air-conditioner. You couldn’t use window units.
At that time, the people in the apartment above Horowitz decided that they wanted to put in through-the-wall air-conditioning, and they needed Horowitz to remove his awning. The board told him to remove it. In fact, by the time the board did this, there was a rule in place that anybody who wanted to install an awning needed board permission to do it. Horowitz brought what’s called a declaratory judgment action. That means he was asking the court for a declaration that he didn’t have to remove his awning.
The appellate court ruled in favor of the co-op. The court said, “There is a rule in place, and Horowitz, like all other shareholders, has to comply with the rule. If the board tells him to remove the awning, he has to remove it, and he can’t replace it without board permission.”
One of the most important aspects of this decision is that there is a section in every proprietary lease called a non-waiver provision. What it says is that even if a co-op has not enforced a rule for years, it can still enforce it at a later date; it has not waived its rights. There are circumstances where a board will have waived its rights, but those circumstances aren’t present here.
There is another significant element to consider. In this case, the board said, “Wait a minute. We were the prevailing party in a litigation, and therefore we want our attorney’s fees reimbursed.” And, in fact, the proprietary lease has an attorney’s-fees provision. What it basically says is that if the shareholder is in default and the board is required to begin or defend an action based on that default, the board can get its attorney’s fees back. (As an aside, even though proprietary leases specify when a shareholder can recover attorney’s fees, there is a statute that makes the proprietary lease provision reciprocal, meaning that if the board can get fees under certain circumstances, the shareholder can also get fees under certain circumstances.)
In any event, in this case the court demonstrated the importance of looking at the proprietary lease. It is, after all, a contract like any other contract. You have to read its words and understand what they mean. For the board to recover fees, the lease stated that Horowitz would have had to have been in default. But he was never in default; the board never sent a proper default notice. It looks as if it tried, but somehow the notice was defective. And under that circumstance, the board was not entitled to collect attorney’s fees.
To sum up, there are two important points touched on in this case: the non-waiver provision, and the attorney-fee provision. The overarching lesson is that boards and shareholders have to know their documents and understand what they’re looking at.
Dale J. Degenshein is special counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.