2018 NY Slip Op 51958

Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 51958
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Source verification: cross_accepted_sealed
Original Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_51958.htm ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,753 chars

associated with illegal units, were sold, and Stable leased those illegal units, representing, in
essence, in the proprietary leases that such units had their only bathing facilities and bedrooms in
the cellar area which, as it turns out, was illegal for those purposes, and where Stable granted
those shareholders the right to quiet enjoyment of those units, without any hindrance by Stable
(see id., exhibit 2, Proprietary lease, ¶¶ 7 [h], 10]), any cooperative board
would be wise to at [*32]least take preliminary steps to ascertain
the legal and economic feasibility of legalizing those units. In particular, if those units could be
legalized at a relatively reasonable cost, Stable could avoid or minimize its legal exposure to
those shareholders. See e.g. Bartolomeo v Runco, 162 Misc 2d 485, 489-490 (City Court,
Yonkers 1994); see also Measom v Greenwich & Perry St. Hous. Corp., 268 AD2d
156, 158-163 (1st Dept 2000) (co-op liable for breaching proprietary lease where cellar studio
apartment was not legally habitable as a dwelling at time shares were acquired); Measom v Greenwich & Perry St.
Hous. Corp., 8 Misc 3d 50, 51- 54 (App Term, First Dept 2005), affd as mod,
42 AD3d 366 (1st Dept 2007) (damages, including reciprocal attorneys' fees, awarded to
proprietary shareholders of illegal cellar studio apartment). Stable could also avoid the possible
loss of monthly income associated with those units, all of which damages and losses may well be
onerous for the remaining shareholders, especially for its largest shareholder, in this relatively
small building. On the other hand, were sufficient facts to emerge that the Board had spent
unreasonable sums in an effort to legalize the cellar units, when the circumstances, including the