Terminated a shareholder's proprietary lease and ejected him from his apartment after thirteen years of withheld maintenance and two contempt findings against him.

A tribunal rejected this claim.

1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidus · 39 AD3d 379 (1st Dept 2007) · App Div 1st Dept · Index 39 AD3d 379

Outcome

Board prevailed

Filed

Last decision

2007-04-24

Elapsed

yrs

Brought by

board

Posture

summary judgment

What the court held

A cooperative's termination of a proprietary lease for objectionable conduct is reviewed under the business judgment rule, and will not be disturbed where the action is authorized, in furtherance of legitimate corporate interests, and taken in good faith. Chronic unjustified withholding of maintenance and refusal to abate a nuisance qualify as objectionable and undesirable conduct, and the fact that the resulting legal costs fall on the other shareholder-tenants is part of why they do.

“the financial burdens were borne by the shareholder-tenants”
39 AD3d at 383

Outcome in full

The cooperative prevailed. Summary judgment on ejectment affirmed, with costs. Termination of the proprietary lease under section 34(e) upheld under 40 W. 67th St. v Pullman, 100 NY2d 147, and Levandusky, 75 NY2d 530. Defences of vagueness, retaliation, discrimination, preclusion and vote-buying under BCL 609(e) all rejected.

The harm continued while the case ran

The water-cooled air conditioning system continued to damage the apartment below across multiple proceedings. Two contempt adjudications -- February 4, 2003 and October 29, 2004 -- were required before a permanent injunction to remove it issued. The downstairs neighbour had to bring their own action.

What it cost

$400,000 — stated in the decision itself, borne by the association.

What would have prevented this

Nothing in this ledger argues the co-op was wrong. It argues that being right cost fifteen years and more than $400,000, and that the money came from the neighbours. An expedited administrative forum for arrears, nuisance and alteration disputes -- the Florida and Nevada model -- would have resolved this in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost, for the BOARD's benefit as much as any owner's.

Sources

Read in full and verified 2026-08-04.

← Back to Enforcement Against an Owner — When the Board Is Right