By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column
In 2029, a new law will ban watering of “nonfunctional turf” with potable water. What is “nonfunctional turf,” and must your HOA prepare to remove it?
In 2023 the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1572 and created Water Code Section 10608.14, applicable to properties including common interest developments. This new statute requires various property owners, including HOAs, to either remove “nonfunctional turf” or begin irrigating it with reclaimed water. HOAs must comply before 2029. Since most HOAs do not have reclaimed water readily available to them without great expense, many HOAs are erroneously assuming they must remove grass areas not regularly used by residents.
However, a careful review of the statutes and connected regulations reveals that probably very few if any California common interest developments will be affected by this law.
What is “Turf”? Under the regulations, “Turf” means a “ground cover surface of mowed grass.” (Title 23 California Code of Regulations Section 491(zzz)). Therefore, grass which is not mowed is not “turf.” So, which mowed grass areas would be considered “nonfunctional turf” under the statute?
What is “Nonfunctional Turf”? “Nonfunctional turf” is defined by Water Code Section 10608.12(u) as “turf that is not functional turf.” OK, that doesn’t seem terribly helpful, but let’s next look at what is “functional turf.”
What is “Functional Turf”? “Functional turf” is defined by Water Code Section 10608.12(m) as “a ground cover surface of turf located in a recreational use area or community space. Turf enclosed by fencing or other barriers to permanently preclude human access for recreation or assembly is not functional turf.” This means that the triggering issue which causes an area of turf to be classified as “nonfunctional turf” is that the mowed grass area is inaccessible to resident walking, sitting, or otherwise enjoying the location.
HOAs must achieve compliance with this new law and cease use of potable water on nonfunctional turf by January 1, 2029. (Water Code Section 10608.14(a)(4)). However, under the aforementioned definitions, only mowed grass areas which are enclosed and inaccessible to residents appear to be “nonfunctional turf.” Therefore, most HOAs probably will not be affected, since they have little or no “nonfunctional turf”. Any HOAs which have purely decorative mowed grass common areas inaccessible to residents should plan on either supplying those areas with reclaimed water or removing mowed turf from such inaccessible locations before 2029.
One problematic issue of this new law is Water Code Section 10608(e)(2), which requires HOAs with over 5,000 square feet (.11 acre) of irrigated common area (not only turf) to certify compliance to the State Water Board every three years. Thousands of HOAs have that much irrigated common area and will have to certify compliance, which seems silly since nonfunctional turf is not likely to reappear in HOAs. The first certification is due on June 30, 2031, but the Water Resources Control Board has not yet provided a method to provide this self-certification. If your HOA has more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated common area landscaping, the reporting deadline of June 30, 2031 should be calendared to avoid late filing. By then hopefully someone will realize the futility of requiring this repeated certification and the requirement will be eliminated.
Each and every multifamily community is different, with unique needs, expectations, and challenges. If you’re a regular reader of this publication, you’ve heard that refrain many times, across a broad range of contexts—including board governance. Some boards are tight-knit, proactive, and highly involved in the day-to-day operation of their properties, while others are more reactive, delegating the operational tasks to management and serving primarily as the final word on big expenditures, capital projects, and unit transfers.
Both approaches are valid, and can be equally effective, depending—again—on the unique character and needs of the building or association being governed. Striking the right balance is difficult to achieve. And that balance may change over time.
One Size Does Not Fit All
A board’s governing style depends on a variety of factors, among them the size of the community, the presence and contractual obligations of management, what the community’s governing documents require, the condition and complexity of the physical property, and the personalities of the board members themselves.
As David Goldoff, president of Camelot Realty Group in New York City, says, “There is no such thing as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ board. Every building has its own personality, history, and pressure points, and that heavily influences how a board governs.” And when there’s a mismatch between a board’s administrative approach and what residents want and expect, friction is bound to follow. Too far one way, and the board may be seen as meddling; too far the other way, and residents feel unheard—and eventually resentful.
The Players
An association or co-op corporation is governed by an elected board whose responsibility it is to protect the welfare of the community in accordance with the applicable governing documents. That protection extends to the physical plant, the association or corporation’s financial viability, and the value of the common areas and individual units. To better understand how a residential governing style can develop, it’s important to understand the components of board authority.
In most cases, the board works in conjunction with a managing agent, legal counsel, and an accounting consultant. As boards are typically made up of elected volunteers who may or may not have experience in those fields, they often depend on their contracted professionals to help them make effective decisions and then execute them. In the simplest terms, boards make policy, and management then executes those policies. What varies from community to community is how much collaboration there is between board and management in the policy-making process, how much input and direct involvement the board demands, and how much discretionary decision-making power the board gives management in execution.
Constitutional Monarchy vs. Létat C’est Moi
“Community association boards operate with a wide spectrum of governing styles,” says Bruno Bartoli, director of management services with Evergreen Management Group in Bedford, New Hampshire. “Each is influenced by factors like the community’s size, the backgrounds of individual board members, and the maturity of the association itself. Some boards prefer a more strategic, policy-oriented approach, focusing on the high-level decisions and delegating more operational tasks to management, while others are more hands-on, involved in everything from vendor coordination to direct interaction with residents.”
Matthew Gaines, a partner with Braintree, Massachusetts based law firm Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, adds that “some boards are very deeply involved with direct daily management. Others are not, whether or not there is a managing agent; most fall somewhere in the middle. Both approaches have their pros and cons. One positive aspect of having a very hands-on board is that they really know what’s going on in the community, and can react quickly when issues come up.
Gaines continues, “Knowing everything isn’t always a good thing, however, because there’s no option for deniability. When you run into an owner, they know you’re very involved, and may pepper you with questions. There’s no break. Being that hands-on can make board service a full-time job for board members who already have full-time jobs. You don’t need to get that far into the weeds. Truthfully, that’s what management is for.”
And in buildings with outside management, board governing style also depends a great deal on how the property manager handles individual situations. “It’s so important to know your audience and connect with each individual board member,” says Thomas Chilenski, president and senior property director with Cedarcrest Property Management in Fairfield, New Jersey. “Every board member, every board, every association is unique and must be treated that way. Getting to know what they prefer, what makes them tick, is essential. You’re managing the personalities and figuring it out. Communication is the key.”
The approach a board takes to governance often depends on the level of relevant expertise found among the board members—which of course can vary widely. As Andy Marks, executive vice president with Maxwell-Kates, a management firm based in New York, notes, “There’s no training for board membership. When I was elected to my board, I wasn’t in the real estate industry. All I had was the experience of living in the building and observing the decisions and style with which the previous board communicated to the community.”
A community may be fortunate enough to have someone with a career in law or finance on the board who can apply their experience, but that’s not always the case. As in Marks’ case, most board members’ relevant experience and qualifications come from simply living in the community and wanting to do their part to keep it running smoothly. It’s not unreasonable to expect a Park Avenue co-op board made up of CEOs and corporate attorneys to function differently than the board of a small limited-equity building downtown that’s made up of teachers, civil servants, and retirees.
The Pros & Cons
To be very clear: ‘differently’ doesn’t mean better or worse in this context; it just means that boards can—and indeed, should—reflect and represent the residents they serve. Part of that is tailoring governing style to resident needs and expectations, as well as realities of scale. A building with 300 units that’s home to more than 1,000 people likely requires a more by-the-book approach to governance than a self-managed 8-unit condo where half the unit owners are on the board and can message each other on Slack. There are benefits and drawbacks to all styles of board governance.
“Those pros and cons,” says attorney Jonharold Cicero, a partner at NYC-based DL Partners Law, “all relate to effectiveness. To be effective, a more relaxed, hands-off approach depends on the communication and attentiveness of the manager and board’s counsel working together—otherwise it doesn’t end well. The hands-on approach where the board is heavily involved can many times also not end well, because it can become autocratic. The reality is a board should act like a CEO of a company; the ‘C-level’ board. They have a property manager and attorney to take care of details and hold them accountable to make sure what needs to be done gets done and that the board’s fiduciary responsibility is protected and executed.”
Chris Tarnok, also a partner at DL Partners Law, adds that no matter what their general character or style, “Boards should not be asleep at the wheel. That has a negative correlation to the building’s overall financial health. Things are happening, and board members must be aware of what’s going on. Doing nothing can lead to special assessments, and other problems.
“But at the same time,” Tarnok continues, “the board shouldn’t pretend to be an engineer, lawyer, accountant, etc. It’s good to have those kinds of people on the board, but you need the right outside professionals to handle matters as they come up.”
Goldoff points out that “a more hands-off board can work extremely well when the building is financially stable, the infrastructure is in good shape, and the board has confidence in its management team. The upside is efficiency—decisions get made faster, professionals are empowered to do their jobs, and there’s less emotional interference in day-to-day operations. The downside is that if the board disengages too much, small issues can snowball before anyone notices.
“On the other end,” Goldoff continues, “hands-on boards often come from a good place—they care deeply about their building and its residents. The benefit of that involvement is strong oversight and accountability. The risk is micromanagement, blurred roles, and decision-making by committee, which can slow projects down, frustrate staff, and even expose the building to liability if board members step into operational roles they shouldn’t be in.”
Scott Piekarsky, a partner with Hackensack, New Jersey-based law firm Offit Kurman, concurs. “Managers want participatory—not overbearing—board members,” he says. “Success means an engaged board that doesn’t micro-manage. The board sets policy; management carries it out. However, sometimes you do need a very active, and perhaps somewhat micro-managing board—if you don’t have a strong management company, for example. If you do have a very good management team, there’s less you need to do. What I’ve learned over 30 years is that a lot depends on your management company, and to an even greater degree on your individual manager.”
“There is no one-size-fits-all model” for boards to follow, says Bartoli. “What’s most important is clarity of roles, consistency in governance, and alignment with the association’s long-term goals. Boards that operate with transparency, structure, and mutual respect—regardless of style—tend to be most effective.”
Reading the Room
According to the pros, managing agents and companies don’t just manage their client properties—to a greater or lesser degree, they have to ‘manage’ their client boards as well. That’s another place where the personalities involved and their collective governing style make a big difference.
“If you have a difficult, demanding, controlling board, it’s tough,” says Marks. “You have to determine if it’s the whole board, or just one or two individuals. You have to talk to the whole board—not just one or two individuals [who] may make board decisions based on self-interest—and ensure that everyone is on board with your recommendations.”
“An active board that is involved with the association and management is a huge positive,” says Chilenski. The board and manager working together as a team is always the best approach, and management must instill trust with the board to accomplish this. Management needs input and opinions from the entire board in order to collaborate and make the best decision for the association’s long term interests.”
An experienced manager adapts their leadership style based on the board’s dynamic while maintaining professional boundaries and ensuring legal and procedural compliance. “With more passive boards,” says Bartoli, “managers often take on a stronger advisory and organizational role, driving agendas, overseeing vendor relations, and presenting options for decision-making. With more active boards, the manager shifts toward a facilitative role—ensuring projects are completed, legal and financial frameworks are upheld, and board actions are properly documented. Regardless of the board’s style, the manager must remain objective, provide consistent education, and ensure that the association operates within the scope of its governing documents and applicable statutes.”
Communication is Key
Along with ‘every building is different’, ‘communication is key’ is another truism CooperatorNews readers will be very familiar with—and one the pros cite again and again when it comes to how boards do their job. Consistent, effective communication between board, management, and residents is crucial for good governance, regardless of board management style. So whether your board meets once a month or once a year, or whether your building is home to 100 or 1,000, the traits that make a great board are universal.
A.J. Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for CooperatorNews, and a published novelist. He may be reached at alan@yrinc.com.
Former Mayor Eric Adams dreamed of bringing about a “trash revolution” in New York City — getting mountains of black garbage bags off the streets, putting garbage in sealable bins, and launching an ambitious citywide curbside organics recycling program.
To enforce this last initiative, in April 2025 Adams ordered inspectors to issue a blizzard of tickets — more than 200 a day — to landlords and co-op and condo boards who mixed regular garbage with organics or failed to set up the mandatory brown organics bins.
Organics recylcling tripled — until a few weeks later, when then-Deputy First Mayor Randy Mastro ordered an end to the ticketing blitz. After Mastro’s order, compost collection fell 43% through the end of 2025, according to a new study by the city’s Independent Budget Office, Gothamist reports. Just 2.4% of residential waste that could be turned into compost was actually being diverted from landfills in 2025. Meanwhile, the city is wasting money on labor and special composting trucks to run routes that make relatively few pickups.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani reinstated those fines when he took office in January, but the level of enforcement hasn’t matched the ferocity of Adams’ initial blitz. Inspectors have issued just 610 tickets for failure to compost since the beginning of the year.
What’s the answer? Education, education, education.
“Obviously, our first priority is to educate folks on how to do it,” says Sanitation Commissioner Gregory Anderson. “The campaign that we’re running right now is really focused on people who live in apartment buildings. Enforcement is always a part of these programs.”
The sanitation department is relaunching a public awareness campaign launched under Adams, which features Scrappy, an anthropomorphized brown compost bin. The ads from the campaign can be seen on city buses, outside bodegas and on the city’s ferries.
The recycling program is designed to reduce the amount of organic waste going into landfills — fruit and vegetable scraps, coffee grounds, egg shells, tea bags and fresh garden clippings — because landfills generate methane, an ozone-depleting gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. The collected organic matter is sent to composting facilities or turned into biogas. The compost is returned to the city to nourish parks, gardens and tree pits.
In New York City, which emits one million pounds of greenhouse gas annually from its municipal landfills, roughly one-third of the residential waste collected is actually compostable.
By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column
Mr. Richardson: I really enjoy your HOA Homefront column. Here’s a question: Is it appropriate for board members to use homeowner time to make speeches? We have a board member who likes to do that — often disparaging owners who have different opinions from hers. Thank you, A.M., San Diego
Dear A.M.: Open forum is not the time for the board members to talk, but is their time to LISTEN. They should be noting any questions or action items that need to be answered or directed to management or a committee. The Open Meeting Act prohibits directors from discussing (or orating) on matters not disclosed on the agenda, per Civil Code Section 4930(a). However, subparts (b) and (c) of Section 4930 allow directors to answer questions or request matters be referred to management, staff, or a committee, which should happen AFTER open forum ends. Board members who abuse open forum by interrupting members cannot fairly insist that homeowners in the audience not interrupt board deliberations. Finally, it’s bad form to use one’s board seat as a platform to bully or criticize other members. Sounds like someone should gently rein this person in a bit. Best, Kelly
Dear Kelly: In an attempt to make board meetings brief, they have taken to voting the “consent calendar” as one agenda item, without any prior members’ knowledge, discussion or even speaking the items on it. This month these include: approve the minutes; acknowledgement that board members have reviewed the financials; treasurer’s report; and manager’s report. These reports are provided to the board by the treasurer and manager prior to the meeting. They are then adopted by the Board at the meeting always without discussion or disclosure of the contents. The reports are then attached as separate PDFs to the minutes of the meeting which are provided to the members a few days after the meeting. Should not these reports be seen by the members before the Board votes on them? How can this square with the open meeting rules or intent? R.S., Solana Beach
Dear R.S.: Consent calendars are a powerful tool to dispose of items not expected to require any discussion – such as the items you list- in one quick vote without deliberation. The consent calendar items still must be listed on the posted agenda, and any director can without explanation ask for an item to be removed and handled as a separate motion. Since consent calendar items are not discussed, it is another reason to conduct open forum at the beginning of the meeting. However, reports the board receives in their “board packets” are not normally shared with the rest of the HOA unless those reports are accepted and added to the minutes. Sometimes the board packet has confidential information such as multiple bid proposals, or incident reports, or delinquency lists, which should not be shared with the community at large.
Consent calendars are valuable because they preserve time and energy for the items which might be controversial and need board focus. Even the smallest HOAs would benefit from their use. One caution – don’t overuse consent calendars as a technique to avoid discussing matters which are not truly routine or non-controversial, because that can quickly destroy a board’s credibility. Nothing is more important than the HOA’s trust in their board.
The rights of shareholders to transfer their shares vary from building to building. The answer lies in the co-op’s governing documents.
By Jill Terreri Ramos The New York Times Real Estate
Q: I live in a Housing Development Fund Corporation, or HDFC, co-op in New York City. Recently, an original shareholder added her adult daughter as a shareholder, and the daughter is a chronic nonpayer. The board doesn’t think she can afford the apartment, and would like the chance to financially vet her. After the daughter moved in, the original shareholder moved to a different HDFC co-op, but the shares were never transferred. Can we require that the shareholder certificate be revised to reflect the daughter’s sole ownership? And can the board financially vet her as a sole shareholder?
A: If the daughter has already been added to the lease, then the board cannot go back and vet her after the fact, unless there was some conditional agreement when she was added. What’s done is done.
Peter Massa, a partner at Fox Rothschild in New York who works with condominium and co-op boards, suggested checking the co-op’s governing documents, regulatory agreements and records for this unit. Was the daughter actually added to the lease? Look to see if there are transfer fees, and read the assignment provisions to see what the board’s review rights are.
If the daughter was never added to the lease, then she may be there illegally. It’s possible that shareholders in your building have a right to transfer their shares to a family member without board consent, but the board can likely prevent any transfer until the maintenance is paid.
Like other co-ops, the board in a Housing Development Fund Corporation co-op has a duty to manage the co-op’s finances in the interest of all shareholders. (There are more than 1,100 HDFC co-ops in New York City, and they have income and resale restrictions.) Almost all HDFC co-ops require owner occupancy, so the original shareholder could be in violation of this rule. But, generally, it’s not in the co-op’s interest to enforce this, since the daughter is a shareholder.
“You want to be able to have her on the hook,” said Darryl M. Vernon, a partner at Vernon & Ginsburg in New York. “She might be able to get her daughter to pay.”
If the daughter isn’t paying the maintenance, you can take action against her — either a nonpayment case or a chronic nonpayment case, depending on how many times she’s failed to pay. In a nonpayment case, the daughter can pay and stay in the apartment, but a chronic nonpayment case could lead to an eviction.
“It’s rare, but it can happen if it’s extreme,” Mr. Vernon said.
On a recent coaching call, my client talked about one of his direct reports needing to be more strategic. He was frustrated and felt that this person just didn’t have what it takes to be successful in their role long term. I asked him how he defined “strategic” and whether he had ever discussed this in more depth with his direct report.
I already knew the answer to those questions because my client tends to operate at a very fast pace and assumes that “everyone knows what strategic means.” But everyone doesn’t know what strategic means to him and what that looks like in terms of work performance. Could it be that if he took the time to share what he wants in a “strategic leader” at his organization that he just might find that he already has it?
These types of misunderstandings and miscommunications happen often. We leave a meeting feeling assured that everyone is in agreement and has their next steps and assignments well in hand, only to revisit the very same discussion at the next meeting and realize that much remains unresolved after all. This happens in delegation too. You think you have delegated a project and have that off of your plate, only to find that what you were expecting was not what you received and now it’s back on your plate.
The key to successfully navigating these interactions is to get to shared understanding – to move from “my view and your view” to “our view.” Here are some ways to do that:
Share perspectives – Solicit others’ perspectives and share your own. Look for where your perspectives align and where they may conflict. The more information we have, the more likely we can gain understanding and avoid misunderstanding.
Uncover what is not being said – Body language is just as important as spoken words when it comes to eliminating misunderstanding. Tuning in to those signals and clues, like facial expressions and body positioning, can provide an opening to inquire about what the person may be feeling but not expressing.
Devote needed time – As I suspected with my client, not taking the time to have a complete two-way conversation will inevitably lead to misunderstandings. When it is important and agreement is needed, carve out the necessary time.
Ask open-ended questions – Getting to shared understanding requires depth of understanding. Yes or No answers are never enough. Draw out information from others by asking great open-ended questions. For delegation, try “What are the commitments and next steps coming out of this conversation?” For getting buy-in on an idea, ask “What have I missed?” For confirming that you are on the same page, say, “I’d like to know what you see as the agreements we’ve just made.”
Get specific on definitions and terms – Words can be meaningless if there is not a common definition among those in conversation. My client believed that “strategic” is a term that is universally understood and yet his direct report was not exhibiting the strategic behaviors he was looking for. Defining “strategic” and what it looks like will reduce misunderstandings in evaluating the employee’s performance.
Don’t avoid the uncomfortable things – Often misunderstanding comes from avoidance – avoiding conflict, avoiding critical feedback, avoiding having the tough conversation. We may hope that the situation takes care of itself or that it really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, but that is usually not true. Stepping out of your comfort zone and into a space of uncertainty and discomfort makes it possible to learn more about yourself and others and get to a place of shared understanding.
Misunderstandings happen all the time. There may be times when it’s OK and nothing suffers but, more than likely, unresolved misunderstandings will create tension, build up silos, and lead to lower team and organizational performance. Taking steps to address this issue is part of being a Thoughtful Leader.
By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq., HOA Homefront Column
Dear Mr. Richardson: Our HOA board recently changed the rules without notifying owners. Does this invalidate the changes? Thanks! J.G., San Diego
Dear Kelly: In our HOA there is limited parking available. The HOA is now requiring everyone to clean out their garage and park at least one car in it. There is no rule in the rules and regulations stating this. Are they allowed to even make this new rule? L.C., Huntington Beach
Dear J.G. and L.C.: Per Civil Code Section 4350(a), an enforceable “operating rule” must be in writing. Rules cannot conflict with the HOA’s articles of incorporation, CC&Rs or bylaws, per Section 4350(c). Also, the rule change process must substantially comply with the procedural requirements of Civil Code 4360. Some HOAs have “rules” which are simply board pronouncements – those are not enforceable but at most policy statements.
The verbatim content of a proposed rule or rule change must be first announced to the membership in verbatim form, along with an explanation of its purpose, at least 28 calendar days before the board considers it. Then, at the open board meeting to vote on the change attending members must have the chance to comment. I don’t think failing to announce and then vote upon a proposed change in an open board meeting substantially complies with the required procedure.
Civil Code Section 4355(b) lists some exceptions to the process requirement, most notably that the 2-step 28-day process is not required for rule changes required to comply with law or which repeat something already elsewhere in the CC&Rs or bylaws.
Best regards to you and your HOAs, Kelly.
Dear Mr. Richardson: Does our board have the right to temporarily suspend or not enforce a rule(s) that are in our rules & regulations, our CC&Rs, or the master CC&Rs? Our board voted to suspend enforcement of some holiday decoration rules but did not say which holiday rules. Last year families defied all our holiday rules. These suspended rules now contradict our HOA CC&Rs and master CC&Rs, which state there can be no difference from the master CC&Rs unless it is more restrictive. I have found nothing on the right of HOA Boards to suspend HOA rules. Sincerely, J.M., San Diego
Dear J.M.: Association boards have discretion under the Business Judgment Rule to decide not to enforce a rule if the violation does not merit HOA effort or expense, per the 1977 Beehan v. Lido Isle appellate decision, or to reasonably interpret their governing documents, per the 2018 opinion in Eith v. Ketelhut. However, boards cannot simply ignore clear language of their CC&Rs, per the Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach ruling from 2008.
Another issue you reference is the master CC&Rs, which means there is an authority superior to the HOA board in this regard – the master association board. An important question is whether the HOA board is exposed to possible action by the master association.
J.M, I like holiday decorations as much as the next person, so long as they are attractive in appearance. If the HOA wishes to have a seasonal moratorium on decorations, instead of temporarily ignoring their rules, perhaps a more effective approach would be to modify the rule to match the community desires.
A messy and complicated dispute between a condo board and its commercial unit-owner has landed the parties in court while highlighting the importance of reaching an alteration agreement before work begins.
The dispute is between the condo board and the commercial unit-owner at 1055 Madison Ave., a 27-story, postwar building with a distinctive double-height base level clad in granite. This ground floor level contains, among other things, the building’s residential lobby and a single commercial unit.
The commercial unit-owner proposed subdividing the commercial unit into three different retail spaces. In order to do so, the unit-owner had proposed punching additional shop windows through the granite facade near the corner, disassembling a mezzanine level and catwalks used to access certain building pipes and valves located in the ceiling above the commercial unit’s 20-foot high interior space, and drilling anchorages into the granite facade to hang new signage for the prospective new retail tenants.
The parties engaged in lengthy negotiations over an alteration agreement but could not come to terms. Undeterred, the commercial unit-owner went ahead and did all of the work contemplated by the unsigned alteration agreement anyway.
Bring in the lawyers. The board sued, and a lower court issued a decision that denied most of the relief sought by both parties. Even though it agreed that the board had an easement to access the building pipes and valves, the court denied the request for relief ostensibly because the board had a contractual remedy to restore access. With respect to the exterior windows and signage, again the court denied relief even though it conceded that the unit-owner had installed the windows and sign without permission. The ruling stated that the unit-owner would suffer a “hardship” if its improperly installed windows and signage were removed.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department found that the board should have been granted a declaratory judgment that the unit-owner had no authority to alter the exterior facade or demolish the mezzanine and catwalks without board permission, noting that a showing of “irreparable harm” is not a predicate for granting relief. On the other hand, the court largely refused to disturb the lower court’s decision denying injunctive relief to the board, finding that requiring the unit-owner to restore the catwalks and removing the signs would be “extremely costly” and “disruptive to defendant’s tenants,” even though the board had produced expert testimony that the lack of immediate access to the building pipes constituted a continuing violation of the Building Code.
It is unclear from the decision how the board’s easement to access building pipes and valves will be restored. In addition to being a regulatory requirement, this is clearly a safety issue, and it will be imperative for the board to exercise its contractual right and fiduciary obligation to enter the commercial space and restore that access as soon as possible. Unless the parties are somehow able to negotiate a settlement, it seems inevitable that as soon as the board’s contractors arrive to restore the catwalks, the parties will be back in court.
The moral of this ongoing legal saga is clear: come to an alteration agreement before the alterations begin.
This is a lightly edited version of an article that appears in the March 2026 Condo/Co-op Digest prepared by the law firm Moritt Hock & Hamroff.
Filing Deadlines, Extensions, & Further Information
By Cooperator Staff
The NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) published a service notice at the end of February reminding boards, managers, and building owners of the 2026 filing deadlines for the City’s local sustainability laws, including:
Benchmarking Energy & Water Use
Buildings covered by Local Law 84 must submit benchmarking reports by May 1. For a detailed explanation of the requirements, visit nyc.gov/LL84.
Energy Efficiency Scores & Grades
Buildings covered by Local Law 33 must post the Building Energy Efficiency Rating Label near each public entrance starting October 1 and no later than October 31. For a detailed explanation of the requirements, visit nyc.gov/LL33.
Greenhouse Emissions Reductions
Buildings covered by Local Law 97 that are required to demonstrate compliance in 2026 must submit a compliance report by May 1 and no later than June 30. Buildings also have until June 30 to apply for a 60-day filing extension. For a detailed explanation of the requirements, visit nyc.gov/LL97.
Lighting Upgrades & Submeter Installation
Buildings covered by Local Law 88 that have not yet demonstrated compliance must submit a compliance report by May 1. For a detailed explanation of the requirements, visit nyc.gov/LL88.
Energy Audits
Buildings covered by Local Law 87 that are required to demonstrate compliance in 2026 must submit an Energy Efficiency Report (EER) by December 31. For a detailed explanation of the requirements, visit nyc.gov/LL87.
What began as a routine look at deterioration in a parking structure quickly turned into a much bigger project for the board of a 200-unit condo in Rego Park. With engineers on site to address mandated facade repairs, the condo board decided to deal with garage repairs — only to uncover failed waterproofing, cracked and flaking concrete and an unexpected electrical hazard.
Built in the 1980s, the condo has an underground single-level concrete garage where the roof is an outdoor asphalt parking lot. “You would think the majority of damage would be overhead,” says Michel Monteiro, senior project engineer at Cowley Engineering, the firm engaged by the board. Most of the damage, however, was on the slab on grade, the concrete poured directly onto the ground.
The structure’s original waterproof coatings had failed, allowing salt and de-icing chemicals to enter cracks and accelerate the deterioration. A large portion of slab needed to be repoured. “What started originally as minor cracks expanded, causing significant spalling and corrosion to the reinforcement,” Monteiro says. Spalling, the flaking or breaking away of concrete, is often associated with corrosion of steel reinforcements inside the structure.
Facing a cost of $1.6 million, the condo board is paying for the work with a loan and an assessment. In addition to financing, there was also the logistical challenge of moving cars offsite during the repairs. With close to 130 cars to work around, the project was completed in phases. To help accommodate vehicle owners, the property manager sought out public parking for 50 or 60 cars while each phase was completed.
Originally the concrete work was going to be partial depth repairs, but during the excavation the contractor uncovered an unexpected problem — live electrical conduits buried in the concrete. “Typically these conduits are buried within the soil beneath the slab,” Monteiro says. In this case, the live electrical wiring was two inches below the surface. Work was immediately halted in order to carry out a ground penetration radar (GPR) scan, a type of concrete X-ray to rule out other hidden dangers.
The discovery of buried electrical wires delayed the project by about three months as wiring was refitted overhead. The GPR scan did not identify live conduits in other parts of the garage, which meant the second and third phases of the project were unaffected. In addition to the new concrete on the garage floor, repairs have also been made to the perimeter of the building where water was getting into the garage from above.
