In Board of Managers of T* of T* R* Condominiums v. U*, the condo filed suit against owner WU, alleging water damage to common areas stemming from faulty window work in his unit.
Crucially, they cited a provision in the condominium bylaws—Article V, Section 10(b)—that requires a unit owner to bear the cost of repairs necessitated by their own negligence. U* resisted liability and moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred as it sounded in negligence and the work had occurred over three years earlier.
While the Westchester Count Supreme Court agreed with that analysis, on appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, offering a sharp correction rooted in careful legal parsing.
The AD2 noted that while the underlying misconduct may involve negligent conduct, the Board’s claim was tethered not to tort law, but to a contractual obligation: the enforcement of a specific bylaw. As such, the case was governed by CPLR 213(2), the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract.
This distinction is not merely academic—it reframes both the legal standard and the timeline. The breach, according to the plaintiff, occurred when U* allegedly refused to pay for repairs in 2022. The suit filed in 2023 was therefore timely. The court's reasoning aligns with precedent that permits plaintiffs to frame a cause of action in contract even where the breach involves negligence, so long as a valid contractual duty exists independent of tort law.
Importantly, the decision also reinforces the practical authority of condominium boards to enforce internal governance documents. By recognizing the bylaws as enforceable contractual instruments, the court protects the financial and structural integrity of common-interest communities—a principle that resonates broadly within New York real estate jurisprudence.
The only thing worse than a leak is the litigation ....
# # #
DECISION