ADA M LEITM A N BAILEY, P.C.WE GET R ESULTS

Dealing with Disabled Applicants and Residents: How

to Comply with the Law

Reproduced with permission from Real Estate Law &Industry Report, 4 REAL 164, 03/08/2011. Copyright �2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com

H A N D I C A P P E D PA R K I N G

Fair housing mandates compel those responsible for management of condominiums and

co-ops, as well as developers, to make specific arrangements for the parking needs of dis-

abled persons. In this article the authors provide detailed reviews of the legal requirements

to provide for handicapped parking facilities in multi-family housing facilities.

Disabled Resident Parking Spaces: Issues for Condo/Co-op Boards, Developers

BY ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY AND JOHN M. DESIDERIO

U ntil such time as society goes totally Green andautomobiles disappear from our streets and high-ways, the need to have parking spaces adjacent to

apartment buildings for residents and guests will con-tinue to exist. Coupled with that need are laws and rulesgoverning the use and assignment of parking spaces byand for persons with disabilities. All levels of govern-ment (federal, state, and local) have enacted laws andregulations to ensure that disabled persons are not de-nied parking spaces because of their disability and thatthe parking spaces for such persons provide ease of ac-cess to the buildings they live in or visit as guests.

However, compliance with these laws also affectsand limits the rights of non-disabled residents in bothnewly constructed condominiums and old building co-ops. In addition, for developers of newly constructedbuildings, compliance may impose legal obligations,previously overlooked by sponsors and buyers alike,that could require the re-drafting or amendment of newoffering plans and that may provide condo boards withnewly discovered claims against their sponsors.

This article will summarize the laws involved, notewhat condo and co-op boards must do to comply, and

Adam Leitman Bailey is the founding partnerof Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., and John M.Desiderio is a partner and chair of the firm’sReal Estate Litigation Practice Group.

REPORT

COPYRIGHT � 2011 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. ISSN 1944-9453

A BNA, INC.

REAL ESTATE !LAW & INDUSTRY

discuss the obligations that developers have to providehandicapped parking spaces in connection with newconstruction.

The Federal LawThe applicable federal law that governs the provision

for and allocation of parking spaces for people with dis-abilities at a multiple dwelling is the Fair HousingAmendments Act of 1998 (FHAA). Section 6(a) of theFHAA, codified at 42 USC § 3604(f)(2)(A), provides thatit is unlawful:

[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, condi-tions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in theprovision of services or facilities in connection with suchdwelling, because of a handicap of that person.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) defines ‘‘discrimination’’ to in-clude:

a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules,policies, practices, or services, when such accommodationsmay be necessary to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The above provisions of the FHAA were interpretedand applied by the federal Court of Appeals for the Sec-ond Circuit in the case of Shapiro v. Cadman Towers,Inc. 1

In the Cadman Towers case, the Second Circuitnoted that a regulation promulgated by the U.S. Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 24CFR § 100.204(b), provides an example of a ‘‘reason-able accommodation’’ under the FHAA.

The example set forth in section 100.204(b) posits abuilding with 300 apartments and 450 parking spacesavailable on a first-come/first-served basis, and statesthat the duty to make ‘‘reasonable accommodations’’obligates the building management to reserve a park-ing space for a mobility-impaired tenant near that ten-ant’s apartment. The regulation explains the reasonsfor this as follows:

Without a reserved parking space, [the tenant] might be un-able to live in [the apartment] at all or, when he has to parkin a space far from his unit, might have difficulty gettingfrom his car to his apartment unit. The accommodationtherefore is necessary to afford [the tenant] an equal op-portunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The accommodationis reasonable because it is feasible and practical under thecircumstances. (Emphasis added)

As noted by the District Court for the Southern Dis-trict of New York, in Hubbard v. Samson ManagementCo.,2 ‘‘[r]easonable accommodations ‘can involvechanging some rule that is generally applicable so as tomake its burden less onerous on the handicapped indi-vidual,’ ’’ but ‘‘[w]hether a requested accommodation isrequired under the [FHAA] is ‘highly fact-specific, re-quiring case-by-case determination.’ ’’

In Cadman Towers, the Second Circuit noted that thebuilding’s management had argued that a reasonableaccommodation under the FHAA cannot include dis-placing tenants who already have parking spaces as-signed to them or interfering with the expectancy ofpersons already on the waiting list. The Court ad-dressed this argument as follows:

The extent to which a ‘‘reasonable accommodation’’ for ahandicapped individual can burden or take away rights orprivileges enjoyed by non-handicapped persons is an im-portant question of first impression in this Circuit, particu-larly in the non-workplace context. However, it would bepremature for us to reach this issue now. The district courtfound that Shapiro could be accommodated without dis-placing any existing tenants, because three parking spotsare reserved for building personnel and these workerscould park in a commercial garage. (Emphasis added).

Nevertheless, in Samson Management, the DistrictCourt said that ‘‘[t]o determine whether the [FHAA] re-quires a proposed accommodation, courts generallybalance the burdens the contemplated accommodationimposes on the defendant against the benefits to theplaintiff.’’ As the Court explained:

As the balancing test suggests, courts typically find an ac-commodation reasonable ‘‘when it imposes no undue finan-cial or administrative hardships on the defendant . . . andwhen it does not undermine the basic purpose of the[challenged] requirement.’’ It is clear under the [FHAA]that a landlord may be ‘‘required to incur reasonable coststo accommodate [a tenant’s handicap] provided such ac-commodations do not pose an undue hardship or a substan-tial burden.’’

In Samson Management, the building owner wasfound to have discriminated against the plaintiff by hav-ing failed to offer her a free, reserved parking space suf-ficiently near her apartment to meet her needs. TheCourt acknowledged that the building owner had ar-gued ‘‘correctly’’ that:

[I]f they were required to supply free, reserved parking forHubbard, they might be similarly required to provide park-ing near the apartment of every handicapped tenant in thecomplex. If the current allocation of parking spaces disad-vantages handicapped tenants, then Samson might indeedbe required to allocate parking so as to assure handi-capped tenants an opportunity equal to that of their non-handicapped neighbors to use and enjoy their dwelling.(Emphasis added).

New York State LawThe principles set forth in the Cadman Towers case

and in the Samson Management case apply with equalforce under the New York State’s Human Rights Law(Executive Law § 296[18][2]) which provides that it isan unlawful discriminatory practice to:

Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, poli-cies, practices, or services, when such accommodationsmay be necessary to afford said person with a disabilityequal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The Appellate Division of the New York State Su-preme Court, Second Department has held, citing Cad-man Towers and Samson Management, that ‘‘[u]ndercertain circumstances, a building owner may be re-quired to grant a disabled tenant a parking space forhis or her own use, as a reasonable accommodation forthe tenant’s disability.’’3 (Emphasis added).

New York City LawIn addition to applicable federal and State law, the as-

signment and use of parking spaces in a multiple dwell-

1 51 F3d 328 (2d Cir. 1995)2 994 F. Supp. 187, 189 (SDNY 1998)

3 Lindsay Park Housing Corp. v. New York State Division ofHuman Rights, 56 AD3d 477, 478, 866 NYS2d 771, 773 (2dDept. 2008).

2

3-8-11 COPYRIGHT � 2011 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. REAL ISSN 1944-9453

ing facility is also subject to requirements of the follow-ing provisions of the New York City AdministrativeCode:

New York City Administrative Code, Section 27-292.19.Section 27-292.19 Parking Spaces

(a) Where parking areas or garages are provided, at leastone parking space but not less than five percent4 of the to-tal number of parking spaces provided shall be suitable foruse by people having physical disabilities. Where determi-nation by percentage results in a number containing a deci-mal of 0.5 or more, the next higher number shall be used.

(b) Location, space, size and signage for parking spacessuitable for use by people having physical disabilities shallcomply with provisions set forth in reference standard RS4-6.

New York City Administrative Code, Title 27, Ch. 1, App.(Ref. Stds.), RS 4. RS 4.6.2 Parking Facilities

Except as otherwise provided in § 4.6.2.2 and 4.6.2.3, acces-sible parking spaces shall be designated as reserved forphysically handicapped people by a permanently postedsign showing the symbol of accessibility (See 4.28.5). Suchsigns shall not be obstructed by a vehicle parked in thespace.

RS 4.6.2.1 Multiple Dwellings

In the parking facility of a multiple dwelling, where such afacility is used exclusively on an accessory basis for park-ing by residents of the multiple dwelling, or employees ofthe management of the multiple dwelling or of the parkingfacility, or as provided by § 25-412 of the Zoning Resolu-tion, the accessible parking spaces may be leased, rentedor assigned to a person without a physical disability on ano longer than month-to-month basis.All leases, rentals, orassignments of such accessible spaces which are not madefor the benefit of a person with a disability shall be on writ-ten condition that the space shall be relinquished immedi-ately at the end of the term of lease, rental, or assignmentto a person who requests of the parking facility’s manage-ment that such accessible space shall be made available forthe benefit of a person with a physical disability whose ve-hicle bears a special identification permit or license plate.Such a beneficiary shall be a resident or employee of themultiple dwelling. It shall be the responsibility of the Park-ing Facility Operator to inform the non-disabled user of theparking space that a request for the parking space hasbeen tendered. Signs stating these requirements shall bepermanently and prominently posted at each entrance andoffice of the Parking Facility. (Emphasis added)

Violations of these NYC Code provisions subject theviolator to both civil and criminal penalties.

Applying the Law to Possible ProblemsThe Multi-Building Co-Op Scenario. A three-building

co-op apartment complex has 400 parking spaces forresidents and employees distributed in four parkinglots. There is one lot with 100 parking spaces adjacentto each building (the ‘‘building lots’’), and the fourth lotwith 100 spaces is located across from the complex onthe opposite side of a busy street (the ‘‘off-campus’’ lot).There currently are no spaces set aside for persons withdisabilities in any of the lots. All of the residential park-ing spaces are rented to shareholders on a first-come/

first served basis. There is a waiting list for spaces ineach building lot and for spaces in the off-campus lot.Residents are assigned spaces in the off-campus lot be-fore they can become eligible for a building lot space.All residents pay a monthly rental fee for their parkingspaces. The fee for building lot spaces is slightly higherthan the fee for spaces in the off-campus lot.

Analysis of the Scenario. Whether or not a particularresident is a person with a disability is subject to proofof the disability. The person claiming the disabilitybears the initial burden of proof on this essential fact.However, once the disability is established, the boardmust comply with the law. In this scenario, therefore, itseems clear, from the above summary of the law, thatthe co-op board would be required to make a parkingspace available to any resident with a disability (a) whorequests a parking space, (b) who owns an automobile,and (c) who possesses a special identification permit orlicense plate. The fact that non-disabled residents mayhave been on one or more of the various waiting listsfor extended periods of time does not override the law’srequirements.

In addition, any parking space made available to aperson with a disability would have to be sufficientlyclose to the building in which he/she resides to accom-modate the severity of the person’s specific disability,i.e., in one of the three building lots and not in the off-campus lot. The co-op would also need to issue written‘‘month-to-month’’ rental agreements requiring that aspace be relinquished immediately at the end of therental term to any person with a physical disability whorequests management to make a space available for his/her benefit.

Accommodating the individual requests of disabledresident shareholders in this scenario would not imposean undue hardship on management. Presuming that thedisabled residents pay the rental fees otherwise re-quired of non-disabled residents, management wouldsuffer no loss of revenue. Moreover, since all residentswith parking spaces are required to pay rent for theirspaces, requiring the disabled person to also pay therequisite rental fee is not likely to be found discrimina-tory.

Both federal law and NYC law require that a mini-mum number of parking spaces for people with disabili-ties be made available in parking areas or garages. Ifthe co-op does not have parking spaces reserved forvisitors only, it would likely be required to set aside ad-ditional handicapped spaces for such visitors in theminimum number prescribed by law. The law is notclear on this point, but prudence would dictate that theco-op reserve the additional spaces and that it do so inareas adjacent to and easily accessible to the buildings.

Condo Issues. Developers of newly constructed con-dominiums typically reserve the right to sell all of thecondominium’s parking spaces separately from thecondominium apartment units sold to the residentialowners. The developers’ ownership of the parkingspaces and unsold units often extends into the periodwhen the residential owners have taken control of thecondominium board. This duality of control by the resi-dential board and by the developer sponsor over adja-cent areas of what is a single premises gives rise tomany disputes between the board and the developer re-garding the manner in which they exercise the respec-

4 The FHAA prescribes that not less than four percent of thetotal number of parking spaces provided shall be suitable foruse by people having physical disabilities.

3

REAL ESTATE LAW & INDUSTRY REPORT ISSN 1944-9453 BNA 3-8-11

tive rights specified for each of them in the condo-minium offering plan, declaration, and by-laws. Thecontrol and disposition of condominium parking spacesis often an occasion for such disputes because, beforethe time when all parking spaces are sold, compliancewith and administration of handicapped parking re-quirements tends to be a dual responsibility of both thedeveloper and the residential board.

[A]fter the resident owners take control of the

board, the board is responsible for administering

and policing the residents’ use of the handicapped

parking spaces.

Initially, the developer decides which of the condo-minium parking spaces are to be reserved for peoplewith disabilities. However, after the resident ownerstake control of the board, the board is responsible foradministering and policing the residents’ use of thehandicapped parking spaces. During the time when thedeveloper still retains ownership of some parkingspaces, the situation may arise where handicapped resi-dents who did not purchase any of the parking spacesoffered to them decide to park in the designated spaces‘‘illegally’’ – i.e., without paying the sponsor for thespace. The sponsor may then claim that the unit owneris ‘‘trespassing’’ on the developer’s property and de-mand that the board act to stop the errant unit ownerfrom using the sponsor’s property as his/her privateparking space.

In these circumstances, the law does not appear to re-quire the available handicapped spaces to be used freeof charge by handicapped residents who were offeredthe opportunity to purchase parking spaces but chose tonot purchase. If those residents want to have handi-capped parking spaces identified and reserved forthem, the law does not preclude either the sponsor orthe condo board from demanding that the unit ownersinvolved purchase the right to the spaces they want.There is no discrimination if they are treated the sameas all other unit owners.

The harder issue involves the situation where all ofthe available parking spaces have already been sold tonon-disabled resident owners. In such a case, it wouldseem that, under the principles set forth in the CamdenTowers and Samson Management cases, the condo

board might be required to compel a non-disabled resi-dent to sell his/her parking space to the handicappedresident. The authors of this article do not know of anypublished decision on this issue, but it is certainly pos-sible that such a case could be filed (by either the dis-abled resident, the non-disabled resident, or the condoboard) where a court will be asked to decide whetherthe board has the power to compel the transfer of theparking space and, if so, whether the condo board mustcompel the transfer to be compliant with the law.

The most intriguing unresolved issue in this area iswhether developers have an obligation not only to setaside the required number of handicapped parkingspaces, but also to identify them in the offering plan asadditional common elements of the condominium inwhich all of the unit owners acquire an undivided own-ership interest upon purchasing their apartment units.There does not appear to be any distinction between thedeveloper’s mandatory legal obligation to provide thebuilding with a roof, hallways, heating equipment, andother common elements, as required by the buildingcode, and the developer’s additional mandatory obliga-tion, under the FHAA, the New York Human RightsLaw, and the New York City Administrative Code, toprovide a minimum number of parking spaces for per-sons with disabilities.

It would seem, therefore, that developers have no le-gal right to ‘‘sell’’ the parking spaces they designate forhandicapped parking in the condominium garage.When parking is otherwise made available as part ofthe project, the developer assumes the obligation toprovide those spaces as part of the building’s commonelements in the same way as it assumes the obligationto put a roof on the building and to install the requiredHVAC system, windows, and doors. Accordingly, uponthe developer’s transfer of its interest in the project tothe residential board, there should be no requirementfor either the board or any unit owner to purchase the‘‘unsold’’ handicapped spaces from the developer. Thecondo already ‘‘owns’’ those spaces.

This is an issue that previously has been overlookedby buyers and developers alike, but, nevertheless, it is areal issue and one that could very well be raised in a fu-ture litigation. There are probably dozens of condomini-ums and hundreds of unit owners who have potentialclaims against their developers for refunds of theamounts they paid for parking spaces that were eitherinitially designated by the developer as ‘‘handicapped’’spaces or that should have been so designated, i.e.,spaces the developer ‘‘sold’’ and for which ‘‘sales’’ itshould now be liable to pay refunds.

4

3-8-11 COPYRIGHT � 2011 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. REAL ISSN 1944-9453

Vital Legal Principles in Building Management

By Adam Leitman Bailey, Leni Morrison Cummins, and Dov Treiman* Disability Although commonly thought of as the ADA, the law governing housing issues

for persons claiming disabilities does not actually include the ADA, but rather the

similar but different Fair Housing Act. Most Fair Housing issues are fairly obvious,

such as the provision of ramps where there are short staircases or elevators where

there are long ones. Issues get more complicated where the problems are diseases

of various kinds and the proposed “reasonable accommodations” by the occupants

are waivers or nonenforcement of building rules. The most obvious example would

be a seeing eye dog for a blind person in a pet free building. Any kind of genuinely

certified working animal comes readily into these definitions.

Where the biggest problems arise are with so called “comfort pets” whose job

it is to cheer up the occupant. There are no bright line definitions in the law as to

what kind of pet would qualify, what level of need the occupant might have for the

pet, and what level of inconvenience to other occupants of the building must be

tolerated in the name of reasonable accommodation. The results of any litigation

can be very much dependent on the temperament of the judge hearing the case and

will certainly depend on the skills of the respective attorneys.

Other more oddball cases include occupants who claim special needs to have

washing machines because of some disease they have, toleration for their hoarding,

and even keeping dangerous pets as “comfort” pets. Building managers will need to

keep extremely careful records on these kinds of cases and be prepared to present

them to attorneys working on the case.

* Adam Leitman Bailey is the founding partner of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.. Mr. Treiman is a

partner and Ms. Cummins is an associate in the firm.

ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY, P.C. ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY1

JOHN M. DESIDERIO COLIN E. KAUFMAN GUY ARAD1 DOV TREIMAN JEFFREY R. METZ CHRISTOPHER E. HALLIGAN ELLIOTT JOFFE1 JACKIE HALPERN WEINSTEIN1

LENI MORRISON CUMMINS1,2 SCOTT J. PASHMAN1 ROSEMARY LIUZZO1 MEREDITH GRASSO1 DONALD MITCHELL1

BLAIR PARSONT3 COURTNEY J. LERIAS1 EMILY TEJERINA PENNELL2 JAMIE SCHARE FRIEDLAND1 VLADIMIR MIRONENKO5 JOANNA C. PECK5 ALISON WEISMAN5 CAROLYN Z. RUALO1 PETER J. REID6 JESSICA D. SCHERER7

OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. GELLER1 LEONARD H. RITZ JODY KRISILOFF

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

1 Also Admitted to New Jersey

2 Also Admitted to Connecticut 3 Also Admitted to California

4 Also Admitted to Florida 5 New York Admission Pending 6 Also Admitted to Texas 7 Also Admitted to Massachusetts

_______________________________________________________________________________________

120 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10271 tel: (212) 825-0365 fax: (212) 825-0999 14 South Main Street, New City, NY 10956 tel: (845) 639-3099

www.alblawfirm.com

___________ {D0}, and ALL TENANT(S)/OCCUPANT(S) OF UNIT {D1} {D2}

RE: Payment of Rent Directly to Condominium for the premises known as Unit {D1}, at {D2}.

Dear TENANT(S)/OCCUPANT(S): This office represents the Board of Managers of the {D3}. Please be advised that the owner of the unit (“Owner”) has failed for more than {D4} days to pay to the Board of Managers the common charges and assessments as required under the By-Laws of the Condominium. If the Board of Managers continues to fail to receive the common charges and assessments, it will lead inevitably to the Board moving to foreclose on the premises and to imperil your continued occupancy. Therefore, and for the purpose of preserving your occupancy of the unit, you are directed to provide to the undersigned attorney the full names and contact information for all occupants of the aforesaid unit so that arrangements may be made for you to pay your rent directly to the Board of Managers and to receive full credit therefor. Please be further advised that pursuant to Section 339-k of the Real Property Law of the State of New York, commencing immediately, all rental payments for the unit by you must be sent directly to the undersigned attorney, at the address listed below, by check or money order payable to the “Board of Managers of {D3}”, until such time as the undersigned attorney notifies you that payments for common charges, assessments or late fees are made current. Thereafter, all rental payments may again be made to the Owner. Further, also pursuant to section 339-kk of the Real Property Law of the State of New York, payments by you to the Board of Managers made in connection with this letter shall relieve you from the obligation to pay such rent to the owner, and shall be an absolute defense in any non-payment proceeding commenced by the Owner against you for such rent.

[TO] [DATE] Page 2 of 2 If you fail to comply with the instructions set forth in this letter, in any action the Board of Managers brings the Court may award costs and disbursements against you by reason thereof or other relief that the Court deems appropriate. THIS OFFICE IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Very truly yours, cc: BOARD OF MANAGERS {D6 D2 } {D6 D7}

ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY, P.C. ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY1

JOHN M. DESIDERIO COLIN E. KAUFMAN GUY ARAD1 DOV TREIMAN JEFFREY R. METZ

BLAIR PARSONT3 COURTNEY KILLELEA LERIAS 1 EMILY TEJERINA PENNELL2,4 JAMIE SCHARE FRIEDLAND 1 JENNIFER BEYER1 VLADIMIR MIRONENKO5 CAROLYN Z. RUALO1 PETER J. REID6 JESSICA SCHERER7

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

CHRISTOPHER E. HALLIGAN ELLIOTT JOFFE1 JACKIE HALPERN WEINSTEIN1

LENI MORRISON CUMMINS1,2 SCOTT PASHMAN1 ROSEMARY LIUZZO1 MEREDITH GRASSO1 DONALD MITCHELL1

OF COUNSEL: WILLIAM J. GELLER 1

LEONARD H. RITZ JODY KRISILOFF 4 Also Admitted to Florida

1 Also Admitted to New Jersey

2 Also Admitted to Connecticut 3 Also Admitted to California

5 New York Admission Pending 6 Also Admitted to Texas 7 Also Admitted to Massachusetts

_______________________________________________________________________________________

120 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10271 tel: (212) 825-0365 fax: (212) 825-0999 14 South Main Street, New City, NY 10956 tel: (845) 639-3099

www.alblawfirm.com

June 6, 2012 _________________ _________________ _________________ Dear Ms. _____________, This office represents the creditor, _____________________________. Please be advised that a claim in the amount of $_____________, calculated through _____ __, 2012 has been referred to us for appropriate action, such as a foreclosure proceeding. That sum might not include payments recently sent to the creditor. As of the date of this letter, unless you have received a discharge in bankruptcy, you owe $____________, comprised of common charges and late fees due to the ______________________ since ___________, and $_____, comprised of common charges and late fees due to _________________, since ____________.

Because of interest, late charges, inspection fees and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the date payment is made may be greater. Hence, if the amount shown above is paid, an adjustment may be necessary after payment is received, in which event we will inform you before depositing the payment. For further information, call our office at 212-825-0365. If you are actively engaged in military service, or have been activated from reserve status, it is important that you contact us. Unless you notify us within thirty days after receipt of this letter that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed by us to be valid. If you notify us in writing within the thirty day period that the debt or any portion

June 14, 2012 Page 2 of 2 thereof is disputed, we will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against you, if any, and we will mail you a copy of such verification or judgment. Upon your written request within the thirty-day period, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. THIS OFFICE IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Very truly yours, Leni Morrison Cummins

LIEN FOR UNPAID COMMON CHARGES

BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE _______________________________

against

_______________, Record Owner

NOTICE OF LIEN

Amount: $___________

Filed: ______________, 2012

Unit: __

Block: ____

Lot: ____

ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY, P.C. 120 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, New York 10271 Tel: 212-825-0365 Fax: 212-825-0999

NOTICE UNDER THE CONDOMINIUM ACT

FOR UNPAID COMMON CHARGES To the City Register of the County of _________, State of New York, and all others whom it may concern: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned Board of Managers of ______________________, whose address is c/o __________________________, on behalf of the unit owners, as lienor, has and claims a lien on the condominium unit described as follows:

1. The name and address of the property is: ________________________________________.

2. The Condominium Declaration is dated ___________________, and was recorded in the Office of the Register of the City of New York, on _______________, CRFN No. ________________.

3. The Record Owners of the Condominium Unit is: __________________.

4. The Unit Number is ______ and is designated by Tax Block ______, Lot ____.

5. The amount of the lien is $_________ (hereinafter “Amount”), and the purpose for which the Amount is due is common charges outstanding since ______________.

6. The date when the Amount is due is ___________ through ____________.

7. The claim of the lien is said Amount together with accruing common charges unpaid as said

lien remains unpaid, together with interest thereon and reasonable attorney fees. Dated: ___________________, 2012 Board of Managers _________________________________

(Lienor) _____________________________ By: ______________, President

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) s.s.: COUNTY OF _____________ )

_______________, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter and have read the foregoing Notice of Lien and know the contents thereof, that the same is true to my knowledge, except as to the matters stated therein to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes them to be true. The reason why this verification is made by the undersigned is that the undersigned is the President of the Board of Managers ________________________ and the undersigned is familiar with the facts and circumstances herein. ___________________________ __________________ Sworn to before me on this ___ day of _____________, 2012 _____________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

Acknowledgement taken in New York State STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) s.s.: COUNTY OF _____________ ) On the ____ day of ________________, 2012, ________________, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument, the individual or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. __________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC