Owner Standing and Enforcement Act

Drafting status. A complete bill draft with a sponsor’s memorandum. No bill number is assigned and no legislator has agreed to carry it. Every citation was verified against a primary source on 2026-07-27; see Part V.

This is the keystone bill. Twelve other mechanisms in the CondosCoopsNYC model formally depend on it. Ten of the duties New York already imposes on condominium and cooperative boards have no affordable route to enforcement, and this bill supplies the route rather than adding another duty.

PART I — SPONSOR’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

BILL NUMBER: to be assigned

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the real property law, in relation to a cause of action for unit owners and shareholders to enforce enumerated statutory duties, the recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees, protection against retaliation, and the availability of association legal advice to the owners who fund it.

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

New York already tells condominium and cooperative boards what they must do. It does not give the owner any way to make them do it that costs less than the thing being asked for. This bill supplies the route.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 sets out legislative findings.

Section 2 creates a cause of action for a unit owner or shareholder to enforce enumerated statutory duties, with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing owner and a bad-faith exception running the other way.

Section 3 bars retaliation against an owner for asserting a right under this act or reporting to a public agency, and provides a remedy.

Section 4 codifies a fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege for advice concerning the administration of the association, with an adverse-litigation carve-out.

Section 5 protects a board member, association employee, or owner who makes a good-faith report of suspected misconduct to a public agency.

Section 6 provides severability and an effective date.

JUSTIFICATION:

The problem is not the absence of duties. It is the price of asserting them.

Section 339-w of the real property law requires a condominium board of managers to keep detailed, chronological records of receipts and expenditures with supporting vouchers, to make them available for examination by unit owners at convenient hours of weekdays, and to furnish an annual written summary. Section 624 of the business corporation law gives a shareholder of record the right, on at least five days’ written demand, to examine the minutes of shareholder proceedings and the record of shareholders. Both verified 2026-07-27.

Neither provision says what happens when the board declines.

The answer under present law is that the owner may commence a proceeding in Supreme Court. The records sought are worth nothing in themselves; the dispute is worth whatever the underlying irregularity turns out to be, which the owner cannot know precisely because the records were refused. The cost of the first motion exceeds any plausible recovery. The rational choice is to stop, and that is what almost everyone does.

The consequence is that a statutory duty enacted by this Legislature is, in practice, optional — enforced only against boards that would have complied anyway, and against no others.

Fee-shifting is the provision that changes the arithmetic. A claim that costs four thousand dollars to bring and returns nothing but a stack of paper is irrational to file no matter how meritorious. The same claim, with costs and reasonable fees recoverable on success, is rational — and a board that knows it is rational complies before it is filed. The mechanism does most of its work without ever being used.

New York already uses this structure where it wants a right actually asserted. Section 70-a of the civil rights law permits recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees in an action involving public petition and participation upon a demonstration that the action was commenced or continued without a substantial basis in fact and law — verified 2026-07-27. Illinois grants a condominium member who prevails in an action to compel record inspection reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, with a ten-business-day response deadline; that provision is described in Part V with an express caveat about its verification status.

The retaliation bar exists because the predictable response to a new owner remedy is to make using it expensive in other ways — selective enforcement of house rules, denial of an alteration application, a fine that appears the month after the complaint. Section 76-a of the civil rights law already treats communication in a public forum on a matter of public interest as protected, and section 70-a supplies the fee remedy. This bill states that association governance is such a matter and bars the retaliatory acts an association is uniquely positioned to commit.

The privilege provision corrects an asymmetry that has no defender on the merits. Owners fund the association’s counsel through common charges. When they ask what that counsel advised about the administration of their own building, they are told the advice is privileged against them. Section 4503 of the civil practice law and rules contains a provision at subdivision (a)(2) addressing an attorney representing a personal representative, under which beneficiaries are not automatically treated as clients — but it contains no exception for a corporation’s own members. Verified 2026-07-27. This bill supplies the missing analogue and preserves privilege entirely where the association is in actual or anticipated litigation adverse to the requesting owner.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

New. No prior version has been introduced. Assembly bill A.1505 of the 2025–2026 session would enumerate records a unit owner may inspect on ten business days’ notice, including competitive bids above five thousand dollars; verified 2026-07-27, that bill contains no penalty and no attorney-fee provision. This bill supplies the enforcement A.1505 lacks and is complementary to it rather than duplicative.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:

No appropriation. The bill creates no office and requires no agency. Its effect on court workload is contested and is addressed at Part III.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

Ninetieth day after it shall have become a law, applicable to conduct occurring on or after that date.

PART II — THE BILL

                           STATE OF NEW YORK
    ____________________________________________________________________

                                                    [NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED]

                              IN SENATE / IN ASSEMBLY

    Introduced by ____ -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed
      to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary


    AN ACT to amend the real property law, in relation to enforcement of
      statutory duties by unit owners and shareholders


    The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly,
    do enact as follows:

Section 1. Legislative findings.

The Legislature finds and declares as follows:

1. This chapter and the business corporation law impose duties upon the boards of condominiums and cooperative corporations, including duties to maintain records, to furnish information, and to conduct elections.

2. The cost of commencing and maintaining a civil proceeding to enforce such a duty ordinarily exceeds any monetary value the enforcing owner can recover.

3. In consequence, such duties are asserted rarely and are complied with unevenly, without regard to the clarity of the obligation.

4. Where the Legislature has intended that a right be asserted by the person it protects, it has provided for the recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees.

5. It is the purpose of this act to provide such a remedy for enumerated duties, to protect the owner who asserts it from retaliation, and to make available to owners the legal advice their own funds have purchased concerning the administration of their association.

§ 2. Cause of action.

The real property law is amended by adding a new section 339-jj-1 to read as follows:

§ 339-jj-1. Enforcement by unit owners and shareholders.

1. Definitions. As used in this section, “association” means a condominium board of managers or the board of directors of a cooperative corporation organized for the purpose of providing residential occupancy to its shareholders, and “owner” means a unit owner in such a condominium or a shareholder in such a cooperative corporation.

2. Enumerated duties. An owner may maintain an action against an association to compel compliance with, or to recover damages caused by a failure to comply with, any of the following:

  (a) the obligation under section three hundred thirty-nine-w of this article to keep records of receipts and expenditures, to make them available for examination, and to furnish an annual summary;

  (b) the obligation of a cooperative corporation under section six hundred twenty-four of the business corporation law to permit examination of minutes and the record of shareholders;

  (c) any obligation imposed by the declaration or by-laws to hold a meeting or an election of the board;

  (d) any obligation imposed by statute to furnish a disclosure to owners or to prospective purchasers; and

  (e) any obligation imposed by statute to adopt a fee, charge, or assessment by a specified vote.

3. Relief. The court may direct compliance, may award damages actually sustained, and may award such other relief as is just. Nothing in this section authorizes an award of punitive damages.

4. Costs and attorneys’ fees. The court shall award costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to an owner who prevails in an action under this section. The court may award costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to an association where it determines that the action was commenced or continued without a substantial basis in fact and law.

5. Demand. No action shall be maintained under this section unless the owner has first made written demand upon the association and the association has failed to comply within thirty days, except that no demand is required where the obligation is to hold a meeting or election that has already not been held.

6. Individual capacity. An action under this section is maintained by the owner in the owner’s own right. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require compliance with the demand or other requirements applicable to a derivative action.

7. Limitation. An action under this section shall be commenced within three years after the failure to comply.

8. Non-exclusive. The remedy provided by this section is in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedy.

§ 3. Retaliation prohibited.

The real property law is amended by adding a new section 339-jj-2 to read as follows:

§ 339-jj-2. Retaliation prohibited.

1. No association shall take a retaliatory action against an owner because the owner has made a demand or commenced an action under section three hundred thirty-nine-jj-one of this article, has reported or complained to a public agency concerning the association, or has communicated with other owners concerning the governance of the association.

2. For the purposes of this section, “retaliatory action” means the imposition of a fine or charge, the denial or conditioning of an application or consent that would otherwise be granted, the selective enforcement of a rule not enforced against others similarly situated, or the commencement of a proceeding, where such act is taken because of the conduct described in subdivision one of this section.

3. In an action under this section, a retaliatory action taken within six months after the association received notice of the owner’s conduct creates a rebuttable presumption that the act was taken because of that conduct. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the association would have taken the same act in the absence of that conduct.

4. An owner aggrieved by a violation of this section may recover actual damages, may obtain injunctive relief, and shall recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

5. The communication by an owner with other owners or with a public agency concerning the governance of an association is a communication in connection with an issue of public interest for the purposes of section seventy-six-a of the civil rights law.

§ 4. Association legal advice.

The real property law is amended by adding a new section 339-jj-3 to read as follows:

§ 339-jj-3. Communications with association counsel.

1. A communication between an association and its attorney concerning the administration of the association is not privileged as against an owner of that association.

2. Subdivision one of this section does not apply to a communication made in connection with litigation, or with a dispute reasonably anticipated to result in litigation, between the association and the owner seeking the communication, or between the association and a class of owners of which that owner is a member.

3. Nothing in this section requires the disclosure of a communication to any person other than an owner of the association, and an owner receiving a communication under this section shall not waive the association’s privilege as against any third party by receiving it.

§ 5. Protection for reporting.

The real property law is amended by adding a new section 339-jj-4 to read as follows:

§ 339-jj-4. Protection for good faith reports.

1. No association shall remove from office, discipline, or take a retaliatory action as defined in section three hundred thirty-nine-jj-two of this article against a member of the board, an employee of the association, or an owner because that person has, in good faith, reported suspected misconduct concerning the association to a public agency, to an accountant engaged to audit or review the association’s financial statements, or to the board itself.

2. A member of the board who records a dissent in the minutes shall not be subject to removal or discipline on account of that dissent.

3. A person aggrieved by a violation of this section may recover actual damages, may obtain reinstatement where applicable, and shall recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

4. This section does not protect a report the person making it knew to be false.

§ 6. Severability; effective date.

If any provision of this act is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall apply to conduct occurring on or after such date.

PART III — THE OBJECTION THIS BILL WILL ACTUALLY FACE

The opposition to this bill is not that owners should be denied records. Nobody will argue that. The opposition is that fee-shifting produces litigation, and that litigation is paid for by every owner in the building through common charges and insurance premiums.

That objection is serious and it is answered in the drafting rather than in rhetoric.

The claim is bounded to enumerated duties. Subdivision 2 lists five. It does not create a general right to sue a board for decisions the owner disagrees with, and it does not touch the business judgment rule, which continues to protect discretionary decisions exactly as it does today.

Thirty days’ demand precedes any action. Subdivision 5 requires written demand and a thirty-day compliance window. An association that produces the records never sees a complaint. The bill is designed so that its own remedy is rarely reached — which is the point, and which is also why the litigation-volume projection is smaller than it first appears.

Fee-shifting runs both ways. Subdivision 4 permits an award against an owner whose action was commenced or continued without a substantial basis in fact and law. That is the standard section 70-a of the civil rights law already uses. The abusive plaintiff is reached.

Punitive damages are excluded and the limitation period is three years. Both are deliberate. The bill is not designed to produce large recoveries; it is designed to make small ones economically rational.

On court workload, the honest answer is that this bill and the Ninety-Day Resolution Act point in opposite directions and should be read together. This bill makes it rational to bring claims that are not brought today, which adds filings. The companion ombudsperson bill diverts the same category of claim to an administrative forum, which removes them. Carried together the net effect is a transfer out of Supreme Court; carried alone, this bill increases filings. A sponsor should know that, and should prefer to move the two together.

PART IV — OPEN DRAFTING QUESTIONS

1. Section numbering. 339-jj-1 through 339-jj-4 are placeholders. Real property law article 9-B runs §339-d to §339-ll — verified 2026-07-27 — and the Legislative Bill Drafting Commission assigns the actual designations.

2. Cooperatives sit in the wrong chapter. Subdivision 2(b) of section 2 reaches a Business Corporation Law duty from a Real Property Law section. Most New York City housing cooperatives are BCL corporations. Whether this belongs in the RPL with a cross-reference, or requires a parallel BCL amendment, needs Commission review. This is the same unresolved question flagged in three other CondosCoopsNYC drafts and it should be settled once, consistently, across all of them.

3. Mandatory versus discretionary fee award. Subdivision 4 makes the award to a prevailing owner mandatory (“shall”) and the award against an owner discretionary (“may”). That asymmetry is intentional and is the single most likely provision to be negotiated in committee. A fallback position — discretionary both ways — preserves most of the deterrent effect and should be identified before the bill is heard, not during.

4. The six-month retaliation presumption. Section 3(3) is drawn by analogy to retaliation presumptions in other areas of New York law. The specific six-month period is a drafting judgment and was not taken from a verified New York provision. It should be checked against the analogous landlord-tenant retaliation provision before introduction.

5. Interaction with existing derivative-action requirements. Section 2(6) disclaims derivative-action prerequisites. Whether that disclaimer is effective against BCL derivative doctrine for a cooperative, as opposed to a condominium, is unresolved.

6. Whether “association” should include a homeowners association. This draft reaches condominiums and residential cooperatives only. Extending it to HOAs is a scope decision with real fiscal-note consequences.

PART V — CITATION APPENDIX

Verified 2026-07-27 against the source shown.

Claims deliberately not made

PATH TO PASSAGE

Choke-point analysis: the choke-point analysis. In the 2025 session 16,794 bills were introduced and roughly 800 reached the Governor — about 4.8%. Verified 2026-07-27.

Route: standalone, Judiciary, Senate-led — the only one of the ten that should not be folded.

It cannot ride a Housing vehicle: it amends enforcement machinery, it belongs in Judiciary, and it carries the highest opposition intensity in the model. Folding it into a governance bill would put the most contested provision in the set inside a bill that is currently moving, and would likely stop that bill.

The negotiation to prepare for. Subdivision 4 of section 2 makes the award to a prevailing owner mandatory and the award against an owner discretionary. That asymmetry is the provision most likely to be traded. Decide the fallback — discretionary both ways — before the bill is heard, not during.

Sequencing. This bill and the Ninety-Day Resolution Act point in opposite directions on court workload and should move together. Carried alone, this bill adds filings. Carried with the ombudsperson bill, the net effect is a transfer out of Supreme Court. Say that first, before someone else says the first half.

Related: LEGISLATIVE_MODEL.md · solutions S03, S21, S22, S47 in 01_Database/condoscoop.db · companion: cic-ombudsperson-expedited-resolution-act.md