Poyck v. Bryant, 13 Misc. 3d 699 (2006)

Citation: Poyck v. Bryant, 13 Misc. 3d 699 (2006)
Parent Document: Poyck v. Bryant, 13 Misc. 3d 699 (2006)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2006-08-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6307489/poyck-v-bryant/ ↗

Full Text

1,372 chars

While the landlord contends that he had no control over the neighbors in apartment 5-C, he failed to offer any evidence that he took any action to eliminate or alleviate the hazardous condition. The landlord could have asked the board of managers of the condominium to stop the neighbors from smoking in the hallway and elevator as well as to take preventive care to properly ventilate unit 5-C so that the secondhand smoke did not seep into the Bryants’ apartment. Specifically, Real Property Law § 339-v (1) (i) mandates that condominium bylaws restrict the use and maintenance of both the units and common elements such as the hallways and elevators so as to “prevent unreasonable interference with the use of respective units and of the common elements by the several unit owners.” The board *706of managers and even the landlord could have commenced an action for damages or injunctive relief for noncompliance with the bylaws and decisions of the board of managers pursuant to the Condominium Act. (See, e.g., Board of Mgrs. of Vil. House v Frazier, 81 AD2d 760 [1st Dept 1981], affd 55 NY2d 991 [1982].) Moreover, in the case of “flagrant or repeated violation” by a unit owner, the Condominium Act also authorizes the board of managers to impose sufficient surety to ensure future compliance with their bylaws and decisions. (Real Property Law § 339-j.) Conclusion

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text