THE DOCKET / REFUSAL TO PRODUCE BOOKS AND RECORDS
What the board is said to have done
Withheld the condominium's correspondence with a third party the owners were investigating, and the documents behind its settlement with the sponsor, asserting privilege without particulars — then paid the legal expenses of the subpoenaed parties out of association funds.
Partly sustained, partly rejected.
Matter of Healy v. The Carriage House Condominium · 2018 NY Slip Op 07970 (1st Dept 2018) · Sup Ct NY County · Index 160850/2017
Outcome
Split decision
Filed
2017-12-07
Last decision
2018-11-20
Elapsed
1 yrs
Brought by
unit owner
Posture
special proceeding
What the court held
The common-law right of inspection reaches a condominium's correspondence with a third party under investigation by the owners, and the documents behind the condominium's settlement with its SPONSOR -- understanding how a settlement was reached is a valid purpose. A conclusory assertion of attorney-client privilege will not shield them. But the board's decision to pay the legal expenses of the subpoenaed parties resisting the owners' own demand was within its authority and protected by the business judgment rule.
“We reject respondents' conclusory assertion that some unknown number of documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.”
2018 NY Slip Op 07970 at *1
Outcome in full
Split, but mostly for the owners on records. Supreme Court had ordered production of items (a)-(f); the First Department MODIFIED to also compel items (g), (h), (i) and (j) -- the owners won more on appeal than below. The board prevailed on the money: its payment of the subpoenaed parties' legal expenses stood, including for a past board member who may have been unqualified to serve because he was not a unit owner, the court finding oversight rather than bad faith. The owners' conflict-of-interest argument -- that board members voted to pay their own legal fees -- was held UNPRESERVED and never reached.
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
The owners had to litigate to the Appellate Division to obtain documents the board never had a lawful basis to withhold, and the association funded the resistance. A statutory production deadline with fee-shifting -- the Florida model at Fla. Stat. s 718.111(12)(c)1.a. -- would have made the demand self-executing.
Sources
Read in full and verified 2026-08-04.