A recent Court decision illustrates the extent to which a homeowner’s behavior – as contentious and trying as it feels – must be tolerated and, resultingly, emphasizes the need for a communication plan among the Board, the management company, and, if necessary, the Board’s counsel.
In this case, the Board filed an action against the Unit Owners alleging that shortly after they purchased their unit, they:
challenged board/management decisions and protocols,” “told the Condominium staff that he is going to get rid of management”; “tried to fracture the staff and turn them against their manager, board and sponsors”; “harasse[d] the employees for personal information on residents, management, and the developer”; has told employees that they are underpaid; has told staff “that the current property management services are not needed”; “hang[ed] out at the front desk every night”; “walk[ed] around with a camera photographing and recording employees”; asked workers questions, criticized their work, and took photographs; discussed employee issues with other residents; told other residents of “his twisted and false narrative,” including “detail[s] regarding the false budget and the building being in disrepair”; threatened reporting plaintiffs to the New York State Attorney General’s Office; “talk[ed] negatively about the manager in the lobby”; emailed other building residents; and “undermine[d] the manager’s authority by challenging her decisions and protocols and openly share[d] this with staff members.
The case was dismissed in favor of the Unit Owners. The Court determined that “the true nature of this action is the [Board]’s dislike of the [Unit Owners]’ participation” in challenging the Board’s governing activities. Not only were the Board’s claims dismissed, but the Unit Owners were awarded attorneys’ fees.
Essentially, the Court agreed with the Unit Owners that the Board’s claims of nuisance, defamation, tortious interference with a contract, among others, amounted to a SLAPP suit, and was designed, in contravention of the New York State Civil Rights Laws, to retaliate against or silence the Unit Owner’s public participation in protected acts – and most communication between condominium owners about the Board and the condominium is a matter of public concern that is protected speech.
Unfortunately, many Boards face situations where a homeowner or group of homeowners aggressively challenge the Board’s decisions and activities.
The dissenters may go on a community letter-writing campaign or create a social media account for this purpose. They may also resort to bombarding inboxes or seek out in-person confrontations with Board Members. Very quickly the exchanges become personal – for everyone. But creating and following a communication plan could help control the tone and keep emotions at bay, sustaining a culture of civility throughout the community.
In the least, such a plan will likely mitigate damages later on should the exchanges escalate to judicial actions.
The Board of Managers of the Residences at Glen Harbor Condominium v. David Wiener, 2025 NY Slip Op 50090(U) (Sup. Ct., Suff. Cty.)
