Berish v. Bornstein, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 530 (2006)

Citation: Berish v. Bornstein, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 530 (2006)
Parent Document: Berish v. Bornstein, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 530 (2006)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2006-05-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356288/berish-v-bornstein/ ↗

Full Text

1,150 chars

The records maintained by the Condominium Association were on a computer program, and Kaplan was the only one who had access to that program. On the only occasion when he accessed the information, he was only able to retrieve some but not all of the information. He was able to determine that the following units had their windows replaced: Unit 21 because of leaks, Unit 22 because of leaks, Unit 24 because of leaks, Unit 27 because of leaks, Unit 28 because it was not weather tight, Unit 30 as it was not weather tight, Unit 61 because of leaks, Unit 75 also because of leaks, Unit 77 because it was not air tight, and Unit 88 because it was not air tight. Of all of the windows at Cotuit Bay Condominiums, only 36 windows have been replaced. Kaplan assumed that if the windows of all other units were similar to his, those windows, like his, were not properly flashed, although he never conducted any destructive testing. In June of 1983, Kaplan was aware of leaks resulting from defects in the common areas of the building. In addition to the leaks he experienced in his own Unit 24, there were leaks within the building itself in common areas.

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text