Recent Decision Limits Liability of Condo Sponsor's Principal
Joseph I. Farca reviews Board of Managers of '125 North 10th Condominium v. 125North10', where the Second Department extended to a condominium sponsor's principals and members the rule which precludes claims against sponsors (construction defect, in the instant case) based on their alleged violations of the offering plan, merely by reason of those individuals' certification of the offering plan in accordance with the requirements of the Martin Act.
August 03, 2017 at 02:03 PM
9 minute read
On May 24, 2017, a New York appeals court dismissed construction defect claims against a condominium sponsor's managing members and principals. The plaintiff Board of Managers sought to hold these individual defendants personally liable for the corporate sponsor's breach of contract. But in Board of Managers of 125 North 10th Condominium v. 125North10, 150 A.D.3d 1065 (2d Dept. 2017), the court extended to a sponsor's principals and members the rule which precludes claims against sponsors based on their alleged violations of the offering plan, merely by reason of those individuals' certification of the offering plan in accordance with the requirements of the Martin Act.
That rule, reiterated in 2009 by the Court of Appeals in Kerusa Co. v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. Partnership, 12 N.Y.3d 236, 244 (2009), states that “'[t]he Attorney General bears sole responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Martin Act' [citation omitted]; there is no private right of action under the statute.” The court went on to hold that “a purchaser of a condominium apartment may not bring a claim for common-law fraud against the building's sponsor when the fraud is predicated solely on alleged material omissions from the offering plan amendments mandated by the Martin Act.” Id. at 239
The Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiff had no common-law claim for fraud, as distinct from a claim under the Martin Act which only the Attorney General may bring, because plaintiff's pleading failed to allege active concealment unrelated to alleged omissions from Martin Act disclosures. Id. at 245-46.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Judges Question Scope of AG's Power in Trump Civil Fraud Arguments
Court Annuls NYC's Foie Gras Ban In Support of State's Right-To-Farm Laws
9 minute readIllusory Contract; Eviction Based on Illegal Use of Premises: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Practicing New York Attorney Found Liable for $26 Million for Exploitation of Client
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250