Sale at 60 East 9th Street #510

Is there a link to the new ruling?

Not yet. That's why I didn't include it.

It makes me wonder why a responsible board would run up $310k to litigate a point that appears this clear. If I were a shareholder I would be looking at how this happened.

pier45, good point and I agree. This financial burden is now placed on the shareholders, and I'd wonder if this is entirely 100% the guy in question's fault.

Open litigation also can create problems when financing a purchase. Even though the buildings have insurance against lawsuits, the bank will want a letter stating what the maximum potential exposure is should the building lose. Very hard to get a managing agent/attorney to pen such a letter.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

The board knew it'd never have to pay, so wasn't counting the pennies. As it is, $200K of the $310K will be covered by the losing shareholder, and the board will very likely negotiate down the remaining $110K.

The shareholder, like many a litigant, may have been so convinced that he was right, or so convinced that he could win, that he didn't quite register the fact that any shareholder or condo owner who loses a case against a board is liable for all the legal fees. A good lawyer would've tried to drum that into the client. In this case, there was a dispute over which set of plans was attached to the reno application, and the lawyer may have honestly believed what the judge did not: that the set the board and managing agent saw included the satellite dish and AC compressor.