Refused a unit owner access to the condominium's invoices, monthly financial reports, board minutes and legal bills, and to the contact list of the other unit owners.

A tribunal found for the party complaining of this.

Pomerance v. McGrath · 143 AD3d 443 (1st Dept 2016) · Sup Ct NY County · Index 650129/2011

Outcome

Split decision

Filed

2011-01-19

Last decision

2016-10-04

Elapsed

5.7 yrs

Brought by

unit owner

Posture

summary judgment

What the court held

A condominium unit owner's statutory inspection right is NARROWER than a co-op shareholder's and rests on a different statute. BCL 624 does not apply to condominiums, which are generally unincorporated; RPL 339-w governs, and it reaches only records of receipts and expenditures and the vouchers authorizing payments. The First Department filled the gap with the COMMON LAW rather than the statute, holding that a unit owner may examine monthly financial reports, building invoices, board minutes and redacted legal invoices in good faith and for a valid purpose, and may make paper or electronic copies at her own expense during the inspection. The board was held to have no obligation to DELIVER copies, and the individual board members no personal liability for the refusal, which the court classified as mere nonfeasance.

“Condominium unit owners' inspection rights are not governed by Business Corporation Law § 624, as condominium associations, unlike cooperative apartment corporations, are generally unincorporated. Rather, Real Property Law § 339-w governs the statutory inspection rights of condominium unit owners, and grants unit owners the right to examine "records ... of the receipts and expenditures arising from the operation of the property," as well as "the vouchers authorizing [such] payments," during "convenient hours of weekdays."”
143 AD3d at 445

Outcome in full

Split. The owner established a common-law right to examine building invoices, monthly financial reports, board minutes and redacted legal invoices, and to make paper or electronic copies at her own expense; she was also granted the other unit owners' contact information on the 2013 appeal, with costs to defendants. The board established that it need not create and deliver copies, that inspection may be required in person at the managing agent's office during weekday hours subject to a confidentiality agreement, and that its members bear no INDIVIDUAL liability for refusing inspection because that is nonfeasance rather than affirmative misconduct (143 AD3d at 447-448).

The harm continued while the case ran

By the time the Appellate Division ruled in 2016, the inspection had already happened. The court recorded that "the parties have informed us that plaintiff has already inspected the particular materials that were the subject of the order under review," and decided the appeal to govern FUTURE demands. The remedy postdated the need for it.

What it cost

Not disclosed. No decision in this case states a figure, and we publish no estimate. Why costs are mostly blank.

What would have prevented this

A statutory right of electronic access to condominium financial records, with a fixed response deadline and fee-shifting on refusal, would have resolved this in weeks. Five and a half years of appellate litigation established a right the owner had to fund herself: the First Department expressly "reject[ed] plaintiff's argument that defendants should be liable for her costs of obtaining the information she seeks" (104 AD3d at 442).

Sources

Read in full and verified 2026-08-04.

← Back to Refusal to Produce Books and Records