A recent New York Law Journal article discussing apartment alterations in co-ops and condominiums, and the importance of having board-approved alteration agreements, highlighted Babeli v. 7-11 East 13th Street Corporation, a 2003 cases involving a cooperative unit owner with such a board-approved alteration agreement. After moving for preliminary injunction, Ms. Babeli won a court order compelling her co-op to allow her to proceed with agreed-upon alterations. The court, reviewing the agreement the co-op board had made with the plaintiff, concluded that she should be allowed to connect her rooftop space to her apartment by a staircase as outlined in the agreement. Further, the co-op’s stalling in coordinating the completion of the alterations-in-progress were pretext for trying to force Ms. Babeli to purchase more shares for her rooftop space, and in part because she had to live amidst ongoing construction, plaintiff met the requirements for preliminary injunction. Ms. Babeli was represented by Mel B. Ginsburg.
Posts Tagged ‘co-ops’
The Importance of Having Board-approved Alteration Agreements in Co-ops
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010Co-op Owner Wins Right to Keep Companion Animal Under the 3 Month Rule
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010On behalf of a co-op owner, the firm’s motion for summary judgment was granted when we demonstrated that the co-op did not timely commence the proceeding under the requirements of §27-2009.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (sometimes referred to as the “Pet Law” or “three month rule”). Vernon & Ginsburg, LLP represented respondents Roman & Valiantsina Portnov, whose open and notorious harboring of their dog had begun, the court found, more than three months prior to the landlord’s serving a notice of petition and petition, thus triggering a waiver of any no-pet lease clause under the Pet Law.
“By waiting to serve the Notice of Petition and Petition after it first became aware of the dog’s existence, petitioner acted at its own peril, notwithstanding that it gave the respondents the benefit of the doubt,” Civil Court Judge George M. Heymann wrote in 2229-13 Apt. Corp. v. Portnov..
The court noted further that “[p]erhaps [the landlord] should have heeded the adage: ’shoot first, ask questions later.’ Had petitioner taken the precautionary and affirmative steps of timely commencing this proceeding at the outset, the waiver provision of the ‘Pet Law’ would not have come into play.”
The decision appeared in the decisions of interest section of the New York Law Journal on January 21, 2010.
The Laws Affecting Housing & Companion Animals
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009On December 7, 2009, Mr. Vernon chaired a seminar at the New York City Bar Center for CLE discussing issues concerning companion animals in housing in New York. The applicable federal, state and local laws were examined, including §27-2009.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, laws relating to discrimination and the disabled, and statutory and case law generally applicable to housing. Cooperative, condominium, as well as rent-regulated housing were discussed. Course materials, CD and DVD versions are available on the City Bar website.
1725 v. Block
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009The firm recently prevailed at the Appellate Division, helping secure rights for rent-stabilized tenants in a non-eviction co-op to have a companion animals. 1725 v. Block. The Appellate Division ruled that under the three-month rule (§27-2009.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York) the knowledge of on-site employees that provide services to both co-op unit owners and rent-regulated tenants alike is sufficient to trigger a waiver of a no-pet clause and allow the rent-regulated tenants to keep their companion animal. The case cited the firm’s argument that the General Business Law §352-eeee, concerning managing agents in a non-eviction co-op, supports a finding that the knowledge of the on-site employees in a co-op triggers a waiver for regulated tenants under §27-2009.1. The rent-stabilized tenants in Block hired Vernon & Ginsburg, LLP after a defeat in the lower court. Our firm prevailed in appeals at both the Appellate Term and Appellate Division.
