Washington enacted a 26-item condo resale disclosure law in 2026. New York has no equivalent.

A buyer in Washington who signs a contract to purchase a condominium triggers a mandatory clock. The seller's association has ten days to deliver a 26-item resale certificate governed by RCW 64.90.640. The package includes the reserve fund's current balance, its percent-funded status from the most recent reserve study, any pending special assessments, all active violations against the unit or the building, pending litigation involving the association, and the association's current insurance coverage. The statutory fee for preparing that certificate is capped at $275 for initial delivery and $100 for any update furnished within the prior six months. Once the buyer holds a complete certificate, state law gives them five calendar days to walk away for any reason — and no purchase contract can waive that right. New York's Real Property Law §461 explicitly excludes cooperative apartments and condominium units from the Property Condition Disclosure Act. There is no resale certificate. There is no fee cap. There is no cancellation right.

What Washington's 26-item resale certificate covers.

Washington's resale certificate obligation derives from RCW 64.90.640, part of the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (WUCIOA). The requirement became binding on all Washington condo and homeowner associations on January 1, 2026, under Senate Bill 5129, which accelerated the WUCIOA compliance schedule for associations formed before 2018.

The 26 required disclosure items fall into five broad areas. The first covers the unit's financial standing with the association: all amounts the seller owes in assessments, fines, and fees that are attributable to the specific unit being transferred. The second covers the association's reserve fund: its current balance, the most recent reserve study's percent-funded figure, and the study's projection for any special assessments in the next 12 months. The third covers legal and regulatory status: any pending or active litigation naming the association as a party, outstanding violations or citations affecting the unit or common areas, and any deferred maintenance items the board has formally acknowledged but not yet resolved. The fourth covers governing documents: the current declaration, bylaws, and rules, along with the most recent annual budget and audited financial statements. The fifth covers insurance: the type and limits of the master policy, and whether the association carries fidelity coverage protecting against employee dishonesty.

The format is statutory, not discretionary. If the association delivers a certificate that is incomplete, the buyer's five-day cancellation window does not begin. A board that responds slowly or incompletely extends the buyer's exit option rather than the seller's timeline to close.

A cancellation right buyers in New York cannot get.

The five-day cancellation window under WUCIOA (codified at RCW 64.90) is a statutory right, not a contractual one. Sellers and buyers cannot agree to shorten it. A seller cannot offer a price reduction in exchange for a buyer waiving it. Any clause in a purchase agreement purporting to eliminate the cancellation window is void. If a buyer exercises the right, the purchase contract terminates and the earnest money deposit is returned without penalty or condition.

New York has a related right in a specific context: a buyer purchasing a new condominium unit from a sponsor under an active offering plan receives a five-business-day rescission right under the AG's Martin Act implementing regulations. That right applies only to new construction from sponsors. When a prior unit owner sells a condo in Manhattan or anywhere else in New York, the buyer's ability to exit after signing depends on what the purchase contract allows. Attorneys on both sides typically negotiate a short attorney review period into the contract, but a negotiated review period is structurally different from a statutory right. The seller must agree to terminate the contract, and sellers routinely decline. The Martin Act rescission right covers one category of buyer in one type of transaction. For every resale purchase, there is no equivalent protection in New York law.

Reserve studies: mandatory in Washington, not in New York.

SB 5129 and WUCIOA also formalized the reserve study requirement for Washington associations. Condo boards must maintain a current reserve study, updated at least once every three years by a qualified independent preparer, and must fund reserves in a manner consistent with that study's recommendations. The reserve study's most recent percent-funded figure is one of the 26 certificate items, so a buyer negotiating for a unit in a building whose reserves are 30 percent funded receives that information before the contract becomes binding.

New York has no parallel mandate for existing buildings. The AG's Real Estate Finance Bureau requires sponsors to submit a reserve fund schedule when filing an offering plan for a new conversion, but there is no requirement to commission a follow-on study once the building is occupied and the board takes over the association. Bills A8945 and S7600, introduced in the 2025-2026 session, would have required New York condos and co-ops to commission a 30-year reserve study from a qualified independent preparer and file it with the AG. A8945 did not receive a committee hearing. S7600 was reported out of the Senate housing committee. Neither received a floor vote before the session ended on June 18, 2026.

Washington against New York: at a glance.

How New York handles the same information gaps.

A buyer purchasing a resale condominium in New York can request, through their attorney, that the seller's board or managing agent produce a closing package: typically a certificate of no default, a statement of amounts owed against the unit, and copies of the building's most recent financial statements. What actually arrives depends on what the purchase contract requires, what the managing agent charges, and what the board chooses to provide. There is no statutory form, no mandated timeline, and no fee cap on that package.

New York Business Corporation Law §624 and Real Property Law §339-w give shareholders and unit owners the right to inspect a building's financial records. Both rights are enforced through Supreme Court proceedings. No administrative agency can compel a board or managing agent to comply on the timeline a real estate transaction requires. If a buyer discovers after closing that the building's reserve fund is 25 percent funded or that the association is a named defendant in a $4 million construction defect lawsuit, the legal pathway is litigation — pursued at the buyer's expense — against parties who were not required to disclose those facts before the sale. The prior post on seller disclosure and Fannie Mae financing describes the financial exposure this gap creates at the moment of purchase.

The Albany bills that would have closed part of the gap.

Bills A8945 and S7600, the reserve study proposals from the 2025-2026 session, would have moved New York partway toward the Washington standard. They would have required condos and co-ops to commission a 30-year reserve study from a qualified independent preparer, updated on a regulatory schedule and filed with the AG. That is a reserve mandate. It is not a resale certificate, not a fee cap, and not a buyer cancellation right. Washington's framework extends further in all three areas.

The bills did not advance. The prior post on Albany's 2026 adjournment documents the committee disposition for each reform bill from the session that ended June 18. The disclosure side of the structural gap — a statutory obligation to transfer specific financial and legal information to a buyer at the time of sale — has no counterpart bill pending in either the Assembly or the Senate. No current New York bill would create a resale certificate for condos or co-ops, cap the fee for producing one, or give a buyer a cancellation window after reviewing one.

Bottom line.

The pattern across this site's national comparison posts is consistent. Florida required structural and reserve disclosure after Surfside. New Jersey required funded reserves starting in 2024. Hawaii has required annual audits since 2006. Colorado required reserve studies at developer turnover in 2026. In each case, another state identified the information gap between what buyers need to make a sound purchase decision and what sellers and associations are required to disclose, and enacted a statutory floor. New York observed the same gaps and adjourned without acting.

Washington's WUCIOA is the most recent and most detailed entry in that series. The 26-item certificate with a $275 fee cap and a non-waivable five-day cancellation right is not simply a reserve disclosure — it is a buyer rights framework. A buyer in Seattle learns, before the contract becomes binding, whether their building is 30 percent funded, whether the board is a party to pending litigation, and what the association's insurance covers. A buyer in Manhattan may learn none of those things, depending on what their attorney negotiated into the closing package. New York's legislature could set the same floor. The 2025-2026 session ended June 18 without doing so. The next session begins January 2027.

Primary sources:
RCW 64.90.640 (Washington resale certificate requirements) · Washington SB 5129 (accelerated WUCIOA compliance to January 1, 2026) · NY RPL §461 (exclusion of condos and co-ops from Property Condition Disclosure Act) · NY A8945 and S7600 (reserve study bills, 2025-2026 session)

Companion resources:
Florida HB 913 vs. NY condo transparency · New Jersey's reserve fund mandate · Hawaii's annual audit requirement · Colorado's reserve study at turnover · Fannie Mae and the seller disclosure gap · How to check your reserve study's funding method · Albany's 2026 adjournment: four reform bills, no vote · What owners can legally demand from their board