What NYC condo and co-op owners can legally demand from the board

Every month your building collects assessments, pays managing agents, and signs vendor contracts — all in your name. New York law gives you the right to examine many of those records. What the law does not provide is an agency you can call when the board refuses. That enforcement gap is structural, not accidental.

What BCL §624 gives co-op shareholders.

Co-operative apartments in New York are owned through shares in a housing corporation. That structure places co-op shareholders inside the Business Corporation Law, which grants specific inspection rights under BCL §624.

The minimum floor is narrow. Under BCL §624(b), any shareholder of record, upon at least five days' written demand, may examine the minutes of shareholder proceedings and the record of shareholders. Those two items the corporation must open without further condition.

Everything else requires something more: management contracts, vendor invoices, board meeting minutes, bank statements, and reserve fund accountings. BCL §624(b) allows a shareholder to examine and copy additional corporate books and records "for any purpose reasonably related to such person's interest as a shareholder." The phrase "reasonably related" has generated decades of litigation over what it covers.

Courts have generally held that a shareholder's interest in how maintenance dollars are spent qualifies. Suspicion of self-dealing, without proof of actual wrongdoing, can be enough to state a valid purpose. But stating a valid purpose does not mean the board will comply. A board can refuse and force a shareholder to go to court before a single document is produced.

What RPL §339-w gives condo unit owners.

Condo unit owners hold real property with an undivided interest in common elements, not shares in a corporation. That removes them from the BCL and places them under Article 9-B of the Real Property Law.

RPL §339-w requires the manager or board of managers to keep "detailed, accurate records of the receipts and expenditures affecting the common elements, specifying and itemizing the maintenance and repair expenses of the common elements" and to make those records "available for examination by unit owners at convenient hours of weekdays." The board must also produce a written annual financial report to all unit owners.

In 2016, the Appellate Division First Department clarified how far that right extends. In Pomerance v. McGrath, 143 A.D.3d 443, 38 N.Y.S.3d 164 (1st Dep't 2016), the court held that condo unit owners possess a common-law inspection right broader than §339-w's text: monthly financial reports, vendor invoices, board meeting minutes, and appropriately redacted legal invoices all fall within it. The court's rationale was that the equitable principles supporting corporate shareholder inspection rights apply equally to condo unit owners.

One practical result of that decision: owners may make electronic copies of the documents they review. A board cannot bar a phone camera from the records room once a valid inspection demand has been made.

What BCL §727 covers, and what it misses.

Effective January 1, 2018, BCL §727 added a disclosure obligation specific to co-op housing corporations. The board must prepare an annual report to shareholders listing every contract in which a board member held a direct or indirect interest. The report must identify the counterparty, the dollar amount, the contract term, the date of the board vote, and each director's vote on the matter.

BCL §727 is the only provision in New York law that requires a co-op board to disclose potential conflicts of interest to shareholders without a shareholder asking. That is meaningful but narrow. The reporting obligation covers contracts where a board member is an interested party, not every vendor contract the building holds.

A board can retain the same management firm for fifteen years, pay above-market fees, and renew the contract annually without triggering §727's obligation, because managing agents typically do not hold board seats. The conflict-of-interest disclosure requirement does not reach the most expensive contract most buildings sign.

BCL §727 was extended to cover condominiums by a correction bill signed April 18, 2018. Condo associations created under the New York Real Property Law are now subject to the same annual interested-director disclosure obligation — a signed report to unit owners listing every contract in which a board member held a direct or indirect interest, with the counterparty, dollar amount, contract term, and each director's vote. The gap that existed when §727 first took effect was corrected less than four months later.

The managing agent holds the records.

Management contracts, vendor invoices, maintenance logs, reserve fund statements, and building bank records are, in practice, held by the managing agent. Boards direct managing agents; managing agents hold the files.

When an owner submits a formal inspection demand to the board, the response typically comes through the managing agent. If the board instructs the agent to deny or delay the request, the agent follows. No independent licensing consequence applies. In New York, managing agents of residential buildings need no state license, pass no qualifying exam, and are subject to no professional conduct board. S.71 (Kavanagh), the managing-agent licensure bill, has not advanced from committee in ten consecutive sessions.

Local Law 58 of 2026, which takes effect July 28, created direct liability for managing agents alongside co-op boards for violations of the new purchase-application timeline requirements. No statute creates direct liability for managing agents who obstruct a lawful inspection demand. That gap follows directly from the absence of a license and a regulatory body to enforce against.

What enforcement actually requires.

Neither BCL §624 nor RPL §339-w empowers any state agency to compel records production. As this site has documented separately, the AG's Real Estate Finance Bureau operates under the Martin Act and RPL Article 23-A, both of which are limited to sponsor conduct and offering-plan accuracy. Post-closing governance disputes, including records access, fall outside that jurisdiction.

A co-op shareholder refused access must initiate a special proceeding under BCL §623 in Supreme Court. The board must then "show cause" why the inspection should not be permitted. If the court finds the demand valid, it issues a compulsion order. Defiance of that order can constitute contempt.

A condo unit owner must pursue the common-law right recognized in Pomerance v. McGrath through a plenary action or Article 78 proceeding, depending on the specific relief sought. Unlike BCL §623, there is no single designated procedural vehicle for condo inspection enforcement.

Either path costs money. Retaining counsel for a BCL §623 special proceeding typically runs $3,000 to $10,000 before the board files its opposition. Boards that stonewall on records understand this arithmetic.

How to structure a demand the board cannot easily ignore.

A well-formed written demand raises the cost of refusal for the board. Four elements matter:

1. Put it in writing, sent by certified mail and email. The demand must state the statutory basis: BCL §624(b) for co-ops; RPL §339-w and Pomerance v. McGrath, 143 A.D.3d 443 (1st Dep't 2016) for condos. List the specific documents requested by category. A general request for "all records" is easier to deny than a named list.
2. State your purpose with specificity. "I have questions about the budget" is thin. "I am reviewing whether the 2026 management fee paid to [managing agent name] reflects market rates for a building of this size and age, following a 22% increase in the annual assessment" is specific, document-grounded, and directly tied to a shareholder's economic interest. Courts have consistently found that purpose sufficient under BCL §624.
3. Name a date. BCL §624 and RPL §339-w impose no response deadline. Proposing a specific inspection date (fourteen days out is a reasonable notice period) creates a written record of non-compliance if the board goes silent.
4. Send a follow-up at fifteen days. Reference the original demand by date and certified mail tracking number. State that you will seek relief under BCL §623 (co-op) or pursue the common-law right recognized in Pomerance (condo) if access is not provided within seven additional days. This step confirms the refusal is on the record before you spend money on counsel.

Bottom line.

Both New York statutes give condo and co-op owners a real right to inspect their building's financial records. The 2016 First Department decision in Pomerance v. McGrath confirmed that the right is broad for both ownership types, reaching invoices, contracts, and board meeting minutes. BCL §727 added a narrow conflict-of-interest disclosure obligation effective January 2018; a correction bill signed April 18, 2018, extended the same requirement to condominiums.

What the statutes do not provide is an enforcement body. No licensing board, no AG office, no city agency has jurisdiction to order a board to open its books. The only path is a court proceeding — and the board controls the timeline until a judge steps in. The managing agent who physically holds the records is not licensed. S.71, the bill that would create that license and the professional-conduct framework around it, has not moved in ten sessions. Until it does, the right to see your building's books is real, but using it takes a lawyer.

Primary sources: BCL §624 • BCL §623 • BCL §727 • RPL §339-w • Pomerance v. McGrath, 143 A.D.3d 443, 38 N.Y.S.3d 164 (1st Dep't 2016)

Companion resources: Why the NY AG can't help with most condo governance disputes • NYC just made managing agents liable. They still need no license. • S.71 is the NY managing-agent licensure bill nobody's talking about • How to write an AG REFB complaint that doesn't get ignored • NY's condo-reform record: what stalled, and what passed • The NY LLC Transparency Act took effect — sponsor disclosure looks different now • Legislative graveyard