LEGAL TALK

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.

Mishandling anything to do with emotional support pets can have huge financial consequences. The Rutherford, a New York City co-op, recently learned that the hard way when a resident's noisy emotional support birds caused neighbor complaints. The board acted improperly and Attorney William McCracken, partner at Moritt Hock & Hamroff, breaks down what happened, how the board could have avoided  this costly mistake, and the lessons to be learned. Habitat's Carol Ott conducts the interview.

One would think it would be easy to add a family member to a co-op stock certificate, but you can’t "just add a name." For boards, it requires careful consideration of multiple factors, including transfer taxes, flip tax implications, and the financial viability of new shareholders. Matthew Goldberg, partner at Hankin & Mazel, explains how boards should evaluate cases where incoming family members lack strong finances, such as recent graduates being added to elderly relatives' shares, and outlines the legal requirements and NYC filings necessary to protect the co-op's interests. Habitat’s Emily Myers conducts the interview.

When a commercial tenant becomes problematic - whether falling behind in rent, not performing repairs or some other infraction of their lease - co-op and condo boards need to act. In this episode Moshe Bobker, partner at Tane Waterman & Wurtzel, explains what the Yellowstone Injunction is and how this critical legal tool can both protect and challenge commercial tenants in NYC buildings. Learn how this Supreme Court proceeding works, when it applies, and most importantly, how boards can strategically use it to their advantage when dealing with problematic commercial tenants.

Key highlights:

• The four essential elements required for a Yellowstone Injunction
• Why timing is crucial: tenants must file before the cure period expires
• Strategic considerations for boards choosing between non-payment proceedings and holdover cases
• Common resolution paths, from early negotiation to full litigation
• Expert tips for boards to maintain leverage in commercial tenant disputes

Whether you're currently facing commercial tenant issues or want to be prepared for future challenges, this episode provides valuable insights for protecting your building's interests. Habitat's Emily Myers conducts the interview.

Serving on your co-op or condo board can be a terrific experience, but it can turn into a personal nightmare if you or your board acts improperly. There are many legal protections, however, and Geoffrey Mazel, partner at Hankin & Mazel, provides an overview of what they are and the precautions you need to take. Habitat’s Emily Myers conducts the interview.

Key Takeaways for Board Directors:

1. Basic Protections
    • Board members are protected through multiple layers including NY State statute, case law, and co-op bylaws
    • The Business Corporation Law provides indemnification for board members
    • The Business Judgment Rule offers protection when acting within authority, in good faith, and following proper procedure

2. When Protection May Not Apply
    • Intentional wrongdoing or acts without authority
    • No-bid contracts without proper board approval
    • Discrimination against protected classes
    • Conflicts of interest that aren't properly disclosed
    • Actions that violate the proprietary lease

3. Best Practices for Avoiding Liability
    • Hold proper board meetings with minutes and formal votes
    • Consult legal counsel before making sensitive decisions
    • Disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse when necessary
    • For purchaser rejections, ensure:
        - Full board review and vote (not just committee approval)
        - Documentation of legitimate reasons for rejection
        - Proper minutes and record-keeping

4. Potential Consequences
    • Personal financial liability
    • D&O insurance may defend but not indemnify in certain cases
    • Punitive damages in discrimination cases aren't covered by insurance