Bodansky v. Fifth On The Park Condo LLC U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Real Property New York Law Journal February 08, 2010 Judge Cote DEFENDANT sponsored a new 160-unit Manhattan condominium. On Nov. 16, 2007, plaintiff contracted to buy a unit. She had been given a copy of the April 5, 2007, offering plan, including all effective amendments. Her April 29, 2009, letter informed... [more]
Bodansky v. Fifth On The Park Condo LLC
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Real Property
New York Law Journal
February 08, 2010
Judge Cote
DEFENDANT sponsored a new 160-unit Manhattan condominium. On Nov. 16, 2007, plaintiff contracted to buy a unit. She had been given a copy of the April 5, 2007, offering plan, including all effective amendments. Her April 29, 2009, letter informed defendant of her intent to rescind the agreement due to alleged breaches of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act's (ILSA) registration and disclosure requirements. In plaintiff's May 18 suit—after refusing to rescind her contract or to return her deposit—defendant claimed exemption from ILSA's requirements because only 90 units were sold or under contract. Dismissing plaintiff's claims, the court held defendant exempt from ILSA's registration and disclosure requirement under 15 USC §§1702(b)(1) and 1702(a)(2), the Hundred Lot Exemption and Improved Lot Exemption, respectively. Because only 90 units were sold before the condo's completion and a temporary certificate of occupancy issued for the entire building, the remaining 70 units qualified for the Improved Lot Exemption. Because the condo was a "subdivision [with] fewer than one hundred lots…not exempt under [§1702(a)]" the sale of all units was exempt from ILSA's registration and disclosure requirements.
FULL TEXT OF DECISION
[less]
