Withheld consent to a shareholder's replacement of HVAC units the cooperative had previously approved, under a lease clause saying consent would not be unreasonably withheld.

No tribunal ever decided this.

Silver v. Murray House Owners Corp. · 126 AD3d 655 (1st Dept 2015) · Sup Ct NY County · Index 150338/2012

No court has decided whether this conduct occurred. This decision resolved a procedural question. Nothing here is a finding that anyone did anything.

Outcome

Split decision

Filed

2012-02-28

Last decision

2015-03-31

Elapsed

3.1 yrs

Brought by

unit owner

Posture

summary judgment

What the court held

Where a proprietary lease provides that the cooperative's consent to a shareholder's alteration shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, the board's refusal is NOT sheltered by the business judgment rule; it must be reasonable, and whether it was is a question of fact. Separately, and generally: "selective enforcement" is a law-enforcement doctrine concerning prosecutorial discretion and is not a cause of action against a private actor, so leave to plead it against a cooperative corporation was properly denied as lacking merit.

“Plaintiff added a cause of action for "selective enforcement" which is defined as "[t]he practice of law-enforcement officers who use wide or even unfettered discretion about when and where to carry out certain laws" ... and does not lie against a private actor”
126 AD3d at 656

Outcome in full

Split. The cooperative LOST twice: denial of its summary judgment motion affirmed, and denial of its motion to renew affirmed — the reasonableness of its refusal remains a jury question, and its unclean-hands defence was rejected because the shareholder, a former board member, held a good-faith belief that replacing previously-approved HVAC units was not an "alteration." The cooperative WON on the amendment: the order granting leave to add a selective-enforcement claim was reversed and the motion denied. No liability was determined either way.

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

This is the bucket's own gap stated by a court. An owner who believes a rule is being applied to them and not to their neighbours has no claim by that name in New York; they must instead prove bad faith, or find a lease clause the board drafted against itself. Florida and Virginia both route this to an administrative body that examines whether the association followed its own procedure, without requiring the owner to name a recognised tort first.

Sources

Read in full and verified 2026-08-04.

← Back to Selective Enforcement and Retaliation