Eva Talel

September 01, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler and Eva Talel, partners in the firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, write that special meetings initiated by shareholders or unit owners can play a role in the governance of a co-op housing corporation or condominium association by allowing owners to voice their views, put forward proposals and present complaints to management without having to wait for an annual meeting.

By Richard Siegler And Eva Talel

12 minute read

March 03, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler, a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and an adjunct professor at New York Law School, and Eva Talel, a partner at Stroock and an adjunct professor at Cardozo Law School, write that boards and managers must address legitimate complaints of occupants who wish to be free of the odor and adverse health impacts of secondhand smoke.

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

15 minute read

September 01, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler, a partner in the firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and an adjunct professor at New York Law School, and Eva Talel, also a partner at the firm, write that when dealing with the purchase of another unit by an existing shareholder, it can be difficult to strike a legally sound balance. Boards must carefully consider the economic and habitation issues raised and act in the best interests of the co-op as a whole.

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

13 minute read

March 04, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler, a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and an adjunct professor at New York Law School, and Eva Talel, also a partner at Stroock and an adjunct professor at Cardozo Law School, write that when disputes arise between co-ops or condominiums and their respective shareholders or unit owners, an important concern for boards and managers is obtaining reimbursement of legal fees from apartment owners. However, that can be problematic.

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

14 minute read

September 05, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler, a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and an adjunct professor at New York Law School, and Eva Talel, a partner at the firm, review Levandusky's more recent appellate progeny. These cases demonstrate not only continued judicial deference to boards, but expansion of the business judgment rule to unprecedented areas of board decision-making. Importantly, these cases were decided summarily, thus further solidifying the weight of judicial authority mandating deference to board action.

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

13 minute read

May 03, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler and Eva Talel, partners at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, write that 31 years after its codification as New York Real Property Law (RPL) �235-b, the warranty of habitability remains an important protection for residential tenants.

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

15 minute read

May 07, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler and Eva Talel, partners at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, discuss when a board may justifiably elect not to address complaints in disputes between neighbors and provide guidance and recommendations to boards and managers for efficient ways to foster resolution of disputes between apartment owners.

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

16 minute read

March 05, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler, a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and an adjunct professor at New York Law School, and Eva Talel, a partner at Stroock, attempt to bring clarity to the co-op community as to when Business Corporation Law �501(c) constrains board action with a review of the relevant case law.

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

11 minute read

November 03, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler and Eva Talel, partners at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, report that an increasingly important issue pertaining to co-op ownership is occupancy of apartments by non- shareholders.

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

14 minute read

September 02, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Richard Siegler, a partner in Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and an adjunct professor at New York Law School, and Eva Talel, a partner at Stroock and an adjunct professor at Cardozo Law School, write that while a cooperative housing board may wish to impose a minimum transfer price to keep the value of apartment shares high, a selling shareholder who is unable to wait for a buyer willing to pay floor price may object. Is a floor price on co-op shares imposed by a board a valid reason for disapproving a transfer or will it be deemed an unreasonable restraint on alienation?

By Richard Siegler and Eva Talel

13 minute read