New York has had a condo and co-op civil court bill since 2009. No committee has heard it.

New York Senate Bill S.9797, introduced April 2026, would create a specialized subpart within New York City Civil Court's housing part to hear condo and co-op governance disputes: assessment overcharges, board-vote defects, books-and-records denials, and managing-agent conflicts. A companion bill, S.2700, carries the same core mechanism. A second companion, S.9270, adds a small-claims track for disputes under $10,000. None received a committee hearing before the Legislature adjourned June 5, 2026. The same legislation has been reintroduced in Albany since at least 2009. Seventeen sessions. Zero hearings.

Where condo and co-op cases go today.

When a unit owner at a Manhattan condo or a Brooklyn co-op has a governance dispute with their board, the question of where to file is not obvious. New York Supreme Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim exceeding $50,000 and most constitutional or Business Corporation Law questions. But a straightforward BCL §624 books-and-records petition can reach $8,000 to $15,000 in attorney fees before a judge sees it. NYC Civil Court has a $50,000 jurisdictional ceiling and no specialized condo or co-op subpart. The Housing Court, a part of Civil Court, handles landlord-tenant matters. It was not designed for, and does not take, owner-board governance claims. DHCR, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, regulates rent-stabilized apartments; it has no jurisdiction over condos or co-ops. The Attorney General's Real Estate Finance Bureau, as explained in this post, is structurally barred from post-offering-plan governance enforcement by the limits of the Martin Act and Real Property Law Article 9-B. The result: a unit owner with a legitimate governance complaint has a choice between an expensive Supreme Court action and no action at all.

What S.9797 would do.

S.9797 would amend the New York City Civil Court Act to create a "condominium and cooperative housing subpart" within the housing part. The subpart would take claims arising under Real Property Law Article 9-B (condominiums), Business Corporation Law Article 6 (co-ops), and the relevant offering-plan terms, including fee disputes up to the Civil Court's jurisdictional ceiling, books-and-records denials under RPL §339-w and BCL §624, and challenges to board elections where the BCL provides a right. The bill sets a 30-day mandatory mediation window before a case proceeds to a hearing officer. Companion bill S.2700 tracks the same mechanism with a narrower fee-dispute focus. Assembly bill A.3301, introduced in 2019, carried the same concept with a broader governance mandate; it did not advance out of the Housing Committee in that session. S.9270, the third 2026 companion, adds a small-claims track for disputes below $10,000.

Seventeen years without a hearing.

The legislative record for this class of bill extends to at least 2009. In each session where a version was introduced, the Senate Judiciary Committee held it in committee without scheduling a hearing. No bill in this lineage received a floor vote in either chamber. The 2026 versions, S.9797, S.2700, and S.9270, were referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee after introduction in April. The Legislature adjourned June 5, 2026 without any action on any of them. The same committee, the same referral, the same result: seventeen consecutive sessions. See Ten condo reform bills that did not advance and Albany 2026: co-op reform bills that did not receive a vote for the broader pattern.

The forums available to a unit owner today.

The table below maps the dispute types a condo or co-op unit owner is most likely to face against the forums that currently exist and their practical limits.

Why no forum means no enforcement in practice.

The absence of a low-cost specialized forum is not a theoretical gap. Real Property Law §339-w requires a condo board to maintain books and records and to make them available to unit owners on written demand. Business Corporation Law §624 imposes a parallel right on co-op shareholders. Both statutes provide a cause of action for violation. But a cause of action is only as useful as the court that can hear it at a cost proportional to the claim. A $10,000 Supreme Court retainer is not a practical option for a unit owner disputing a $900 line item on a special assessment. Civil Court can hear claims within its dollar limit, but it has no procedural framework for governance matters. The Housing Court's jurisdiction is landlord-tenant only. Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 (1990), established that courts defer to co-op board business judgment absent bad faith or self-dealing. That deference presupposes a court that can hear the claim. For governance disputes below Supreme Court's economic threshold, no such court exists in New York City today.

The managing agent accountability gap deepens the problem. New York licenses no one overseeing your building, which means there is no license to revoke and no licensing board to receive a complaint. A unit owner whose managing agent mishandles funds or ignores a BCL §624 demand has a statutory right, a theoretical court, and no practical path to either.

Bottom line.

A unit owner with a books-and-records complaint, a disputed assessment, or a board-vote defect at a New York City condo or co-op has one realistic option: Supreme Court, at a cost that typically exceeds the value of the dispute. S.9797 and its companion bills would change that by creating a forum calibrated to the dollar amounts and governance mechanics that actually arise at the building level. Seventeen years of reintroduction without a committee hearing is the same structural incapacity the AG already has at a different address: the forum does not exist because no session has created it, not because no one has asked. If the Legislature adjourns the 2027 session without a hearing, that will be eighteen years. Use the issues tracker on this site to follow S.9797 in the 2027 session.

Primary sources: S.9797 (2026) — S.2700 (2026) — S.9270 (2026) — BCL §624 (shareholder inspection rights) — RPL §339-w (condo books and records) — Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 (1990)

Companion resources: Why the AG can't help you with condo governance · Ten condo reform bills that did not advance · Albany 2026: co-op reform bills that did not receive a vote · New York licenses no one overseeing your building · CCNYC Issues tracker