Three condo boards controlled access to a $2B NYC flood project. New York required no disclosure to their unit owners.

Three condominium boards in Battery Park City — Liberty Terrace, Liberty House, and Cove Club — held something the state Battery Park City Authority needed to complete Lower Manhattan's $2 billion coastal flood barrier: access rights to their property. Two boards refused to settle on the authority's terms and forced a project redesign. One is being sued. At every stage of those negotiations, New York's Condominium Act required the boards to notify their unit owners of none of it.

What BPCA is building and why condo boards hold the keys.

The Battery Park City Resiliency Project is a phased coastal-protection program funded by federal Community Development Block Grant dollars and managed by the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA), a state-chartered public authority established under New York Public Authorities Law §1971. When complete, the project is designed to protect Battery Park City against a storm surge matching Hurricane Sandy's peak levels and against 2.5 feet of sea level rise projected by 2050.

The project's construction route runs through and along private residential properties. To cross those property lines without using its condemnation powers, BPCA needed voluntary easement agreements from the owners of adjacent buildings. Condemnation proceedings are slow, costly, and politically expensive. A negotiated easement is faster for everyone. In theory.

At the center of the access dispute are three Battery Park City condominiums: Liberty Terrace at 380 Rector Place (248 units), Liberty House at 377 Rector Place (238 units), and Cove Club. Three other residential buildings (Regatta, Gateway Plaza, and Hudson Tower) reached access agreements with BPCA that included coverage of any insurance cost increases, air and noise monitors placed on the buildings, and cash compensation tied to construction duration and unit count. The specific dollar amounts were not disclosed publicly.

Two boards refused. The $2B project had to change course.

The boards of managers at Liberty Terrace and Liberty House declined BPCA's proposed terms. According to reporting by The City Reporter in July 2026, the boards sought additional compensation beyond what BPCA offered, design changes to protect trees on building property, further risk-mitigation measures during construction, and an independent monitor to oversee the work. BPCA and the two boards could not reach agreement.

BPCA officials said they will pursue a partial project redesign that avoids crossing those property lines. The redesign adds cost, extends the construction timeline, and keeps portions of the Battery Park City waterfront esplanade closed longer than originally projected. A climate infrastructure project affecting Lower Manhattan's flood resilience was delayed because two condo boards exercised the legal authority they hold over their property. New York's Condominium Act grants that authority without condition.

The boards at Liberty Terrace and Liberty House were acting within the scope of their powers. The question this story surfaces is a separate one: What did the unit owners at those two buildings know about the negotiation? When their boards made demands, what mandate did they have from the 486 households whose property values, construction disruption, and common-charge exposure depended on the outcome?

New York Real Property Law Article 9-B, the Condominium Act, does not answer that question. Boards of managers have broad statutory authority to act on behalf of unit owners in legal and contractual matters. No provision requires the board to notify unit owners before opening, conducting, or closing a negotiation with a public authority over an access easement.

The third board is being sued. Its unit owners may not know.

The Cove Club's situation moved from negotiation to litigation. BPCA told a Manhattan judge that it needed access to Cove Club to install temporary protective measures and vibration monitors before major construction phases could begin. According to amNewYork, BPCA stated in court papers that the Cove Club's refusal to allow entry "could derail" the construction schedule for Lower Manhattan's flood protection. BPCA is seeking a court order compelling access under New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law §881.

An RPAPL §881 proceeding by a state authority against a private condo building is a matter of public record. The filing appears on the New York State Courts Electronic Filing system (NYSCEF) and is searchable by building name. A unit owner who knows to search NYSCEF, and who knows their building is a defendant, can find it.

Most unit owners do not search NYSCEF. New York imposes no duty on a condo board to notify unit owners when the building becomes a defendant in litigation. The costs of defending that litigation: attorney fees, court-ordered conditions, and any contempt penalties flow through the building's operating account and eventually into common charges. Unit owners learn about the cost when they see the assessment.

RPAPL §881 was amended by S3799-C, signed by the Governor in December 2025 and effective for proceedings commenced after that date, to add a 60-day response clock, explicit authorization for permanent tiebacks and anchors, and an actual-damages standard replacing full indemnification. Those changes affect what the court can order BPCA to provide to Cove Club. They do not change what Cove Club's board is required to tell its unit owners.

What New York law actually gives unit owners the right to see.

New York Real Property Law §339-w gives condominium unit owners the right to inspect the association's financial records and books of account during normal business hours. That includes executed contracts. A unit owner at Liberty Terrace who knows that BPCA has been negotiating with the board can demand to see any draft or executed agreement. The right of inspection is real.

The statute creates a reactive right, not a proactive disclosure obligation. The board does not send notice when it enters a negotiation, receives a proposal from a state authority, or reaches a final agreement. It does not post the terms. It does not summarize the outcome at the annual meeting unless the governing documents require it. An owner who does not know to ask cannot exercise the inspection right.

For co-op shareholders, the mechanism is similar. Business Corporation Law §624 gives shareholders the right to inspect books and records, including contracts, upon written demand with a good-faith statement of purpose. The BCL does not require the board to affirmatively disclose major transactions to shareholders on its own initiative.

Florida's Condominium Act offers a contrast. Florida Statute §718.111(12) requires every condominium association to maintain all executed contracts and make them available to requesting unit owners within 10 days of the request. Associations with 150 or more units must maintain a website and post certain board decisions, meeting minutes, and financial records within 30 days. New York has no equivalent website-posting requirement and no mandatory timeline for records access.

Why this extends beyond Battery Park City.

Climate infrastructure in New York City will require access to private condo and co-op property at scale. The East Side Coastal Resilience project, the Brooklyn-Queens Waterfront resilience plan, and smaller-scale flood-mitigation work across all five boroughs involve easements, temporary access agreements, and construction activity that crosses or abuts residential property lines. Each of those projects will require negotiation with condo and co-op boards.

As those projects move forward, boards in their path will negotiate terms and accept compensation, or refuse and force redesigns, without any mechanism requiring them to bring unit owners into the conversation. Compensation that flows to a building's operating account remains subject to the board's discretion as to use. Legal costs from access disputes flow to common charges after the fact. A unit owner who bought into a Battery Park City condo for proximity to the esplanade now lives next to a closed waterfront for an extended period because of a negotiating disagreement the board conducted entirely out of their view.

Senate Bill S7541, which passed the New York Senate 58-1 in June 2025 and would have required condo boards to make engineering reports, inspections, and permits available to buyers at contract signing, did not receive an Assembly floor vote before Albany adjourned June 5, 2026. Senate Bill S8912, introduced by Senator Shelley Mayer in January 2026 and referred to the Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee, would have expanded shareholder rights to building information. It also did not receive a floor vote before the session ended.

Bottom line.

The Battery Park City flood-wall story is not primarily about climate resilience or about whether condo boards were right to refuse BPCA's terms. Those are separate debates. What it surfaces is a structural feature of New York's Condominium Act: boards can negotiate long-term access agreements with public authorities, receive compensation, and impose construction-related conditions on their buildings, all without any proactive notice to the people who own units there.

The inspection right in RPL §339-w exists. But it requires an owner to know that a deal was made, to know what records to request, and to follow through. In Battery Park City, the owners at Liberty Terrace and Liberty House may not know what their boards demanded or why. The owners at Cove Club may not know their building is in state court. The owners at the three buildings that settled may not know what their buildings accepted. New York law creates no mechanism to tell them.

Primary sources:
The City Reporter — "Property Dispute Forces Redesign of $2B Flood Wall for Battery Park City" (Jul. 27, 2026)
amNewYork — "Battery Park City Authority tells court it can't move forward without condo access"
Hoodline — "Holdout Battery Park City Condo Puts Brakes on Billion-Dollar Flood Shield" (Apr. 2026)
Battery Park City Authority — project information
NY Real Property Law §339-w (unit owner inspection rights) — NY Condominium Act, Article 9-B
S3799-C — RPAPL §881 amendment, signed December 2025
Florida Statute §718.111(12) — Florida Condominium Act, records and disclosure

Companion resources: What NYC condo and co-op owners can legally demand from the board — New York rewrote the rules for neighbor access during facade repairs — Why the NY AG can't help with most condo governance disputes — Regulatory gaps inventory