Court Opinion

ID: 9965591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 20:08:40.172934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:14.729231
License: Public Domain

Mangold v Board of Mgrs. of Meadow Court
                     Condominium
               2024 NY Slip Op 31517(U)
                     April 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
  Docket Number: Supreme Court, New York County
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                               PART                              47
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          451463/2021
             J. MARSHALL MANGOLD, NANCY MUCIACCIA
             MANGOLD                                                                              MOTION DATE         11/29/2023

                                                         Plaintiffs,                              MOTION SEQ. NO.         002

                                                 - V -

             BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW COURT                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
             CONDOMINIUM, SKYLINE WINDOWS, LLC,                                                           MOTION

                                                         Defendants.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,
            94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,
            117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127

            were read on this motion to/for                                        SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

                      In this action involving the Meadow Court Condominium's (the condominium) window

            replacement policy (the policy), plaintiffs unit owners move for summary judgment pursuant to

            CPLR § 3212 as against defendants Board of Managers of Meadow Court Condominium (the

            Board) and Skyline Windows LLC (Skyline), seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary

            relief. Defendants oppose the motion and cross-move for summary judgment on the grounds that

            the action is moot.

                                                                    BACKGROUND

                      Meadow Court Condominium is located at 12 Meadow Avenue, Bronxville, New York

            10708, and plaintiffs are the owners of unit 6A. The condominium's declaration defines

            "common elements" as "the entire [building] other than the units" and provides that "windows

            which open from a unit shall be deemed part of the unit" (NYSCEF Doc No 93, §§ 4-5). While

            the by-laws give the Board powers and duties relating to the condominium's common elements
             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                                        Page 1 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 10
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            (NYSCEF Doc No 94, Art II§ 2), unit owners are in control of their individual unit. Defendants

            emphasize that while "maintenance of and repairs to any unit ... shall be made by the owner of

            such[,] ... maintenance, repairs and replacements to the common elements ... shall be made by

            the Board" (id., Art V, § 10 [emphasis added]).

                   In January of 2019, the Board notified all unit owners that it would be implementing a

            new window replacement policy "in response to research regarding the need to replace

            inefficient windows that have outlived their intended life and usefulness" (NYSCEF Doc No 96).

            Skyline was hired as a contractor to perform the replacements in both individual units and

            common areas (NYSCEF Doc No 119, pp. 10-21). A unit owner could opt out of the program

            with Skyline, but they would still be obligated to install new Board-approved windows in their

            unit by December 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc No 96). The cost of all window replacements would

            be assessed and paid by unit owners as common charges. Plaintiffs challenged the policy in a

            meeting with the Board in June 2019, arguing that they should not be forced to replace their

            windows since they are a part of their individual unit, rather than a common element, nor should

            they be compelled to pay for the replacement of other unit windows as common charges.

            Additionally, plaintiffs opined that because their windows were in good condition, plaintiffs

            should not be subject to the policy. The Board maintained that plaintiffs must be included in this

            building-wide change. In March of 2020, the Board entered into a master contract with Skyline

            on behalf of the condominium and all participating unit owners.

                   Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Board and Skyline that asserts that the policy

            contravenes the condominium's governing documents and that, by executing the master contract,

            the condominium inappropriately diverted resources to improving property that is not common

            (NYSCEF Doc No 1). Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' action, but their motion was

             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                    Page 2 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                         2 of 10
[* 2]
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            denied by a decision and order dated June 21, 2023 which found that "the condominium's

            declaration and by-laws do not conclusively show that the board was acting within its authority

            when it mandated the replacement of the windows in the units" (NYSCEF Doc No 77 [emphasis

            added]). Subsequently, by a vote of 74% of unit owners, the Board amended its by-laws 1 on

            October 25, 2023 to add the following provisions to Art II § 2 on "Powers and Duties":

                             ( q) [The Board may] require a unit owner to replace an original
                             window, at the sole cost and expense of the unit owner ...

                             (r) With respect to any and every replacement of a window, ...
                             such replacement window must [] meet the standards and
                             specifications then imposed and established by the Board ...

                             (s) [I]f the Board determines that the windows in the Building
                             should be replaced because, in the Board's sole discretion, the
                             majority of windows are beyond their useful life expectancy, and if
                             no less than 50.01 % in common interest of the unit owners so
                             consent in writing, or in lieu thereof, at an Annual or Special
                             Meeting of the unit owners called for such purpose, then the Board
                             may enter into a contract, as nominee on behalf all unit owners, for
                             replacement of all windows in the Building ...

                             (t) ... The unit owner shall reimburse the Board for any costs and
                             expenses associated with acting as the unit owner's nominee
                             including but not limited to the cost and expenses to replace the
                             original windows, and any default and/or failure by the unit owner
                             to fully reimburse the Condominium shall be deemed a default in
                             the payment of common charges and provide the Board with the
                             rights set forth in Article V, Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the By Laws.

            (NYSCEF Doc No 112, the amendment).

                      Plaintiffs argue that the October 25, 2023 amendment must be voided on the grounds that

            it usurps control of their windows, which are exclusively owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also

            move for summary judgment on five causes of action, seeking: ( 1) a declaration that the window

            1
              The amendment is titled "Amendment to the Declaration of Meadow Court Condominium," but it actually amends
            the by-laws (NYSCEF Doc No 112 [emphasis added]). Both the declaration and by-laws may be amended by a vote
            of at least 66.67% of all unit owners at a meeting held for that purpose (NYSCEF Doc Nos 93, § 15; 94, Art XI § 1).
                451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                               Page 3 of 10
                Motion No. 002

                                                                3   of 10
[* 3]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            replacement policy violates the terms of the condominium's governing documents and is

            therefore void; (2) a declaration that the agreement between the Board and Skyline violates the

            terms of the condominium's governing documents and is therefore void; (3) a permanent

            injunction precluding further work from being performed under the contract between the Board

            and Skyline; (4) a money judgment representing plaintiffs' contributions to the condominium

            which were diverted to those unit owners who opted for Skyline's services; and (5) legal fees and

            costs, and sanctions against defendants. Defendants oppose the motion and cross-move for

            summary judgment on the grounds that the amendment dated October 25, 2023 moots plaintiffs'

            complaint, as the unit owners have unambiguously voted to give the Board the power to compel

            the replacement of windows, and plaintiffs are bound to comply with the by-laws as amended.

            Defendants also argue that, while plaintiffs may control the maintenance and repairs of their own

            unit and its elements, defendants are authorized under the by-laws to make replacements as they

            see fit.

                                                       DISCUSSION

                       "It is well settled that 'the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima

            facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to

            demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact."' (Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060,

            1062 [2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]). "Failure to make

            such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing

            papers." (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985] [internal citations

            omitted]). "Once such a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party

            opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material

            issues of fact which require a trial of the action." ( Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553-554

             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                    Page 4 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                          4   of 10
[* 4]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            [!81 Dept 2010], citing Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 342). The evidence presented in a summary

           judgment motion must be examined "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party"

            (Schmidt v One New York Plaza Co., 153 AD3d 427,428 [2017], quoting Ortiz v Varsity

            Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339 [2011 ]). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable

            fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (id.).

                   Article 9-B of the Real Property Law (RPL), known as the Condominium Act (the Act),

            regulates the ownership of condominiums. A condominium governs itself by its own Declaration

            and Bylaws (RPL §§ 339-e[7], 339-u). Each owner in a condominium owns his or her separate

            unit and a share of the common elements-that is, the parts of the condominium owned by all of

            the owners (RPL §§ 339-h, 339-i[l]). Common expenses are the expenses of operating the entire

            property (RPL § 339-e[4][a]), and a condominium's finances may be arranged so that each

            owner pays common expenses according to his or her proportional ownership in the common

            elements (RPL § 339-m).

                   Here, the governing documents indicate that the windows opening from individual units

            are not common elements, but rather private property. The declaration defines "common

            elements" as "the entire [building] other than the units" and provides that "windows which open

            from a unit shall be deemed part of the unit" (NYSCEF Doc No 93, §§ 4-5). The amendment

            dated October 25, 2023 does not attempt to change the individual windows' categorization as

            such (NYSCEF Doc No 112). This comports with the RPL, as the individual windows cannot be

            considered a common interest; no other resident of the condominium can claim a "proportionate,

            undivided interest" in plaintiffs' individual windows, nor can plaintiffs make a claim for the

            same to any other resident's individual windows (RPL §§ 339-e[5]). Thus, as the declaration

            indicates that individual windows are not common elements, plaintiffs cannot be compelled to

             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                    Page 5 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                         5 of 10
[* 5]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            replace their individual windows, nor can they be compelled to pay for the replacement of other

            unit owners' windows in which they have no property interest.

                   Board ofMgrs. ofWharfside Condominium v Nehrich, 73 AD3d 822 [2 nd Dept 2010] is

            instructive. There, the former owners of a condominium unit had altered their private terrace

            adjoining their apartment. Later, as part of a condominium-wide project, the Board sought to

            compel the current unit owners to "restore the terrace to its original condition" and allow the

            Board to "replace several windows." The Board also amended its by-laws to allow the Board to

            be responsible, on a one-time basis, for the replacement of all windows in the condominium and

            require unit owners to allow access as needed to accomplish this task. The court determined that

            the Board "did not establish that the terrace was a common element" and therefore "failed to

            establish that the [unit owners] were in violation of the governing documents by maintaining the

            terrace in an altered condition" (id. at 825). Similarly, here, the October 25, 2023 amendment to

            the by-laws does not change the fact that the windows in individual units are not common

            elements subject to the Board's control. Thus, plaintiffs are not in violation of the governing

            documents by maintaining the windows in their current condition in contravention of the Board's

            reinstalment plan.

                   Defendants do not appear to argue that the individual windows are common elements;

            rather, they assert that "[c]ourts addressing this issue have uniformly recognized that a board has

            authority to issue by-laws which regulate not only the common elements, but also the individual

            units" (NYSCEF Doc No 126). However, the cases defendants cite do not support this

            proposition (Glenridge v. Kavi, 90 AD3d 604 [2 nd Dept 2011] [no indication that the common

            charges the unit owner failed to pay were directed towards individual unit alterations]; Murphy v.

            State, 14 AD3d 127, 128 [2 nd Dept 2004] [involving state appropriation of condominium's

             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                     Page 6 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                         6   of 10
[* 6]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            common elements]). Defendants also cite Mariaux v Turtle Bay Towers Corp., 301 AD2d 460,

            460 [1 st Dept 2003] in support of their position, but that action involved a co-operative, not a

            condominium. In a co-operative, because residents do not own their units, but rather hold shares

            in the corporation holding title to the property, the co-operative board has the authority to compel

            replacement of elements that are exclusively utilized by an individual unit owner. Here, the

            condominium is subject to the Condominium Act, which grants a board of managers the

            authority to charge common fees for changes to common elements, but not for charges

            associated with individual units (compare RPL § 339-m ["common expenses shall be charged

            to[] the unit owners according to their respective common interests"] with RPL § 339-h ["Each

            unit owner shall be entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of his unit."]).

                   Defendants' argument that the Board has the authority to address and remedy issues

            affecting the entire building, including those elements that are not common elements, because

            the by-laws allow for it is unavailing. Defendants emphasize that, while the by-laws state that

            "[a]ll maintenance of and repairs to any unit ... shall be made by the owner of such," "[a]ll

            maintenance, repairs and replacements to the common elements ... shall be made by the Board"

            (NYSCEF Doc No 94, Art V § IO(a)-(b) [emphasis added]). However, in stressing what actions

            unit owners and the Board are permitted to take, defendants overlook the most critical part of this

            provision, which limits the Board's authority over "[a]ll maintenance, repairs and replacements

            to the common elements" (id. [emphasis added]). As explained infra, windows in the individual

            units are not common elements. Thus, defendants have not identified any provision in the by-

            laws that gives the Board the authority to replace individual windows.

                   Defendants' reliance on the October 25, 2023 amendment to the by-laws as the source of

            the Board's authority to require individual unit owners to replace the windows in their units also

             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                      Page 7 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                          7   of 10
[* 7]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            fails. While the RPL specifically allows condominium declarations to define common elements

            differently from the Act (RPL §§ 339-e[3]), the Board's declaration did not categorize the

            individual windows as such. Since windows in individual units are not common elements, the

            Board does not have the authority to require their replacement. The amendment to the by-laws

            purporting to give the Board this authority, therefore, is invalid and will be voided (Strathmore

            Ridge Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Mendicino, 63 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2 nd Dept 2009] ["Here, the

            defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the Association exceeded the scope of its authority in

            enacting the amendments to the bylaws which prohibited and/or restricted leasing without first

            amending its Declaration, and that the amendments are, therefore, null and void"]). Accordingly,

            defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the amendment dated

            October 25, 2023 moots plaintiffs' motion will be denied.

                   Plaintiffs have thus established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their

            first cause of action for a declaration that the window replacement policy adopted by the October

            25, 2023 amendment violates the terms of the governing documents. Since the Board exceeded

            the scope of its authority by requiring individual unit owners to replace their windows, the

            provisions of the contract the Board entered into with Skyline relating to the replacement of

            windows in individual units are invalid. Accordingly, plaintiffs' are entitled to summary

           judgment on their second cause of action to void the agreement between the Board and Skyline

            to the extent that it provides for the replacement of windows in individual units; and on

            plaintiffs' third cause of action for a permanent injunction to the extent that no further work shall

            be performed on windows in individual units under the contract; and on plaintiffs' fourth cause

            of action for a money judgment representing reimbursement for their contributions to the

            replacement of windows in individual units, the amount of which will be determined at trial.

             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                      Page 8 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                          8   of 10
[* 8]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            However, plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment on their fifth cause

            of action for costs and attorneys' fees and sanctions against defendants pursuant to 22 NYCRR

            130-1.1 because they have not demonstrated any frivolous conduct on defendants' part.

                                                      CONCLUSION

                    Based on the foregoing, it is

                    ORDERED that the part of plaintiffs' motion that seeks summary judgment on plaintiffs'

            first cause of action for a declaratory judgment is granted; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the window replacement policy adopted in the

            amendment to the by-laws dated October 25, 2023 violates the terms of the condominium's

            governing documents and is therefore void; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the part of plaintiffs' motion that seeks summary judgment on plaintiffs'

            second cause of action for a declaratory judgment is granted in part; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the agreement between the Board and Skyline

            violates the terms of the condominium's governing documents and is therefore void to the extent

            that the agreement provides for replacement of windows in individual condominium units; and it

            is further

                    ORDERED that the part of plaintiffs' motion that seeks summary judgment on plaintiffs'

            third cause of action for a permanent injunction is granted; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED and DECLARED that defendants are permanently enjoined from

            performing further work under the contract between the Board and Skyline relating to the

            replacement of windows in individual condominium units; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the part of plaintiffs' motion that seeks summary judgment on plaintiffs'

            fourth cause of action for a money judgment representing their contributions to the condominium

             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                     Page 9 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                           9   of 10
[* 9]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 451463/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            that were diverted to those condominium owners who opted to have the windows in their

            condominium units replaced by Skyline is granted on liability with the amount to be determined

            at trial after the filing of note of issue; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the part of plaintiffs' motion that seeks summary judgment on plaintiffs'

            fifth cause of action for legal fees and costs, and sanctions against defendants, is denied; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety.

                      4/29/2024
                        DATE                                                         PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.

                                       ~
             CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED          □ DENIED        GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             451463/2021 MANGOLD, J. MARSHALL vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MEADOW                        Page 10 of 10
             Motion No. 002

                                                             10 of 10
[* 10]