Complaint Against Condo

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
----------------------------------------------------------------X
COMPLAINT
JERRY IANNECE & LYNN IANNECE,
Plaintiff(s)
Index No.:
-against- Plaintiffs designate

QUEENS COUNTY
As the place of Trial
Basis of Venue is Defendants

Place of business and/or residence
THE 47-55 39th PLACE CONDOMINIUM,
RAYMOND CHAN, HARESH KUMAR JOSHI,
NEAL MILANO, DASTAGIR HOSSAIN and
SAMIR JOSHI,
Defendant(s).
----------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, IANNECE & CALVACCA, ESQS.,
respectfully allege, upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned
and prior and after thereto as follows:
1. That the plaintiffs; JERRY IANNECE and LYNN IANNECE were and still
reside in the County of Queens, State of New York.
2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned and prior and after thereto, plaintiffs
were and are the owners, in Fee Simple, of Units 1D (purchased in 2008) and 4B
(purchased in 2014), respectively, in the condominium building located at 47-55 39th
Place, Sunnyside, County of Queens, State of New York. That plaintiffs purchased both
units for investment purposes with the intent to rent said units to prospective tenants.
3. That 47-55 39th Place, Sunnyside. New York, is a six-story prewar non-
fireproof building with approximately 50 apartments located at: Section 2, Block: 99,
Lot 5 on the Tax Map of the Borough of Queens, that was converted to residential
condominiums, pursuant to Article 9-B of the Real Property Law of the State of New
York (Condo Act) and pursuant to a Declaration of Condominium and By-Laws, dated
April 24, 1985 and filed in City Registers Office, County of Queens on July 29, 1985,
under Reel Number 01892, Pages 0775-20774, having its principal office at the
condominium building at 47-55 39th Place, Sunnyside, New York, in the County of
Queens; incorporated here by reference.
4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the aforesaid Declaration and By-
Laws, with any amendments thereto, along with the Condo Act are the governing and
controlling documents of said condominium, and set forth the conditions and limitations
and procedures concerning the conduct of the affairs of the condominium, the
Condominium Board and unit owners.
5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, No Amendments to the By-Laws have
been passed and/or filed, and the governing binding documents are the Declaration, By-
Laws and the Condo Act.
6. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the aforesaid Declaration and By-Laws
called for the creation of a Condominium Board that would be the agent of ALL Unit
Owners and would be governed by the terms, conditions and limitations of said
Declaration and By-Laws, and set forth the rules and procedures concerning the conduct
of the affairs of the Condominium Board and unit owners.
7. That the purpose of the Condominium Board was/is to act as a managing body
for the preservation, maintenance, architectural control and improvement of the condo
building and common areas therein, located at 47-55 39th Place, Sunnyside, New York
11104, and to act/manage in the best interest of ALL condo unit owners.
8. That implicit in said Declaration, By-Laws and the NYS Condom Act, the
Condominium Board had a fiduciary duty to adhere to said governing documents, act
reasonably and prudently as fiduciaries, and was to not act arbitrarily, capriciously, and/or
in bad faith.
9. That attached as an Addendum to said Declaration and By-Laws were Rules
and Regulations which provided for the basic rules of conduct which governed the
administrative and day to day living habits of the unit owners. Said rules and regulations
could be amended and modified by the condominium board from time to time, provided
that said amendment/modification did/does not conflict, alter and/or amend the terms
and/or conditions of the Condo Act, Declaration and/or By-Laws.
10. That said Rules and Regulations could not financially and/or materially alter
a unit owners obligations, nor change the terms of the Declaration and/or By-Laws. The
Rules and Regulations are separate and apart from the Declaration and By-Laws and
were never meant to address condo unit owners financial contractual obligations.
11. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Rules and Regulations are now
called and referred to as House Rules.
12. That under the guise of enacting House Rule changes/amendments, a
condominium board cannot amend, alter and/or change the Declaration or By-Laws. The
Declaration and By-Laws specifically provide for the manner and requirements to change
and/or amend same.

13. Upon information and belief, pursuant to the aforesaid, a Condominium
Board was established and existed when plaintiffs purchased Unit 1D in 2008.
14. Upon information and belief, said Condominium Board employed the
services of a private independent Managing Agency to collect the common charges,
maintain the common areas and to manage the day to day operation of said building,
when plaintiffs purchased Unit 1D in 2008.
15. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, in 2008 when plaintiffs purchased
Unit 1D, pursuant to the Declaration, By-Laws and the Condo Act, as in all
condominium, the unit owners of 47-55 39th Place, had fee simple ownership of their
respective units and, other than the limited condo right of first refusal, like all fee simple
ownerships, the unit owners had virtual unrestricted use to occupy, rent and/or use their
units.
16. Upon information and belief, when plaintiffs purchased Unit 1D in 2008,
there were no transfer fees, flip taxes, rental or sublet fees, processing fees, and/or
significant fees and/or restrictions of any kind.
17. Upon information and belief, on or about 2011, a group of disgruntled unit
owners organized and seized control of the Condominium Board, elected a new board of
managers, fired the independent managing agent and began to self-manage the building.
18. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned,
The 47-55 39th Place Condominium is this new Condominium Board managing and
running the day-to-day operation of said building since 2011 and is one of the named
Defendants herein. (hereafter Condo Board)
19. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the
defendants: Raymond Chan, Haresh Kumar Joshi, Neal Milano and Samir Joshi were
and are the elected members/officers of the Condominium Board, manage the day-to-day
operation of the building and control the Condo (hereafter Managers) and were in this
capacity and control when plaintiffs purchased Unit 4B in April 2014.
20. At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiffs have always paid all common
charges, assessments and/or fees on a timely basis and have continuously rented both
units to tenants since the purchase of each respective unit.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained in
paragraph(s) 1 through 21 inclusive, with the same force and effect as though more
fully set forth at length herein.
22. That on or about November 11, 2012, the Condo Board and Managers
allegedly held a Special Board Meeting and passed a House Rule Amendment requiring
that all new tenants would be required to pay a $750 non-refundable, mandatory
interview and application fee.
23. That said fee was not specifically authorized by the Declaration and/or
By-Laws, could not be imposed by a House Rule change and hence was not permitted to
be instituted without the requisite number of unit owners approval.
24. That said fee was more than double the ordinary and customary amount
normally charged by the industry standards and practices by other condo and/or co-op
boards in the City of New York vicinity.
25. That said monetary House Rules amendment was a disguised attempt to
amend the Declaration and By-Laws without meeting the amendment requirements
prescribed in the Declaration and By-Laws.
26. That the Condo Board and Managers are not authorized and/or permitted to
amend the Declaration and/or By-Laws, unilaterally on their own, without seeking unit
owner approval and meeting the requirements as set forth in the governing documents.
27. That said fee was unauthorized, illegal and unenforceable.
28. That said fee places unreasonably conditions on the rights of the unit owners
to freely transfer and/or rent their condo real property, it infringed upon their property
rights, and is an unlawful and unauthorized Restraint on Alienation.
29. That the action taken by the Condo Board and Managers was unreasonable in
that their was no justifiable and/or lawful reason to impose said fee. The application
and/or interview (many times there were no interviews at all) did not cost the Condo
Board anything.
30. That the action was unreasonable for the further reason that it caused a
substantial reduction in the fair market rental value of the plaintiffs units and dissuaded
would-be prospective renters from renting by imposing an unnecessary and burdensome
additional fee in addition to all the other costs and expenses of renting and moving into a
new apartment.
31. That in early 2014, the plaintiffs put Unit 1D on the market for rental. That
due to the unreasonable and unjustified $750 interview/application fee, plaintiffs had
difficulty renting said unit. To overcome this impediment, as an incentive and
enticement, plaintiffs were forced to agree to pay said $750 fee on behalf of any
prospective tenant.
32. In April 2014, the plaintiffs found renters, signed a lease with said tenants
and paid the $750 fee to the Condo Board.
33. Plaintiffs expressed their disapproval of said fee with the defendants, to no
avail.
WHEREFORE, the defendants demand the return of the $750 fee paid.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
35. On April 25, 2014, plaintiffs closed on the purchase of Unit 4B and spent the
next several weeks upgrading and renovating the unit to make it ready for rental.
36. In June 2014, plaintiffs received notification from defendants that the
mandatory non-refundable rental interview/application fee was doubled and increased to
$1500 per application, and if said fee was not paid, the unit owner would be fined $5000,
a lien imposed on their respective unit, and/or foreclosure proceedings would be
commenced.
37. Plaintiffs immediately voiced their objection thereto and again claimed that
the defendants did not have the authority to impose said fee and further claimed that said
100 % increase was a direct result and/or retaliation motivated by personal animosity
against the plaintiffs by defendants for their respective protest to the original $750 fee
unlawfully imposed and paid on Unit 1D and/or for other unspecified and unjustified
reasons.
38. That said $1500 fee was instituted in bad faith, outside the scope of their
authority, and for no legitimate purpose by the defendants.

39. That said $1500 fee, as was the $750, was imposed by the defendants via a
unilateral House Rule amendment and was imposed in direct contradiction, conflict and
violation to the Declaration and By-Laws.
40. That said $1500 fee financially and materially altered the Declaration and By-
Laws, which are binding contracts between the Condo Board and all unit owners.
41. That due to this unreasonably large unjustified application/interview fee,
plaintiffs had even more difficulty renting Unit 4B and were forced to agree to absorb
said fee and pay it on behalf of any prospective tenant.
42. In September 2014, the plaintiffs rented Unit 4B and paid the $1500 fee
Under Protest to the Condo Board, demanding that the defendants provide proof that
they had the authority to impose said fee. In response thereto, the defendants provided a
clause that permitted the Condo Board to amend the House Rules, but provided nothing
to demonstrate that the Condo Board and Managers could unilaterally amend the
Declaration and/or By-Laws and Unreasonably Restrain Alienation without getting the
requisite unit owners approval.
to freely transfer and/or rent their condo real property and is an unlawful and
unauthorized Restraint on Alienation
44. That the action taken by the defendants was unreasonable in that their was no
justifiable and/or lawful reason to impose said fee. The application and/or interview did
not cost the Condo Board anything, and in many cases, as was in the rental of 1D, there
was no interview at all.
45. That the action was unreasonable for the further reason that it caused a
substantial reduction in the fair market rental value of the plaintiffs units and dissuaded
would-be prospective renters from renting by imposing an unnecessary and burdensome
additional fee in addition to all the other costs and expenses of renting and moving into a
new apartment.
WHEREFORE, the defendants demand the return of the $1500 fee paid.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
47. On June 7, 2015, in retaliation to plaintiffs previous protests, the defendants
allegedly met and voted to pass another House Rule Amendment to again increase the
mandatory non-refundable rental/application fee to $2500.
48. Said third substantial monetary increase in less than 3 years has materially
altered the contract between the plaintiffs and defendants and has substantially reduced
the fair market sale/rental value of plaintiffs units. That said fee, if permitted under the
governing documents, was approximately 10 times the amount of the industry standards
for this type of fee.
49. The defendants did not have the unilateral authority to impose said fees, have
violated the Declaration and By-Laws and have unreasonably alienated and/or restricted
plaintiffs real property rights.
50. For all the reasons stated above in the previous causes of action, the plaintiffs
have sustained irreparable monetary harm.
51. Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of their rights and duties, and a
declaration as to the validity of the actions of the defendants..
52. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the
circumstances in order that plaintiffs may ascertain their rights as alleged. Plaintiffs will
continue to suffer the above-described harm unless and until such declaration is made.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs seeks a judicial declaration that said rental application
fees cannot be imposed by defendants and/or are excessive, further demanding judgment
striking said unlawfully imposed rental/application fees, demanding that defendants
return all monies collected thereon and enjoining the defendants from attempting to
collect this fee or any similar type of fee again.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
54. Upon information and belief, when the plaintiffs purchased Unit 1D, there
were no restrictions and/or transfer and/or processing fees of any kind.
55. Sometime prior to plaintiffs purchase of Unit 4B, the defendants allegedly
met and passed a House Rule Amendment, requiring that all sales/purchases would be
subject to a $850 Application Fee and a $1500 Management Fee.
56. That said fees are no specifically authorized in the Declaration and By-Laws,
and were not passed pursuant to the requisite unit owners amendment requirements
therein, substantially impair the Fair Market Value of the property and are hence a
violation thereon.
57. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs closed on Unit 4B and were forced to pay
said unlawful and unauthorized fees, otherwise the defendants would not have waived the
right of first refusal and the purchase could not be consummated.
58. Said fees were unauthorized, unlawful and an unreasonable restrictions and
alienation on the plaintiffs ownership and/or transfer rights.
WHEREFORE, the defendants demand the return of the $1500 Management Fee
and $850 Application Fee paid.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
60. Upon information and belief, in late 2015, the defendants met and passed
another House Rule Amendment imposing and increasing additional purchase/sale
transfer fees. Under said new provision, sellers were required to pay a processing/service
fee in the amount of $5000 and purchasers were required to pay a $1500 application fee
and a $2500 management fee.
61. Said fees are not specifically authorized in the Declaration and By-Laws, and
were not passed pursuant to the requisite unit owners amendment requirements therein,
substantially impair the Fair Market Value of the property and are hence a violation
thereon.
62. Said fees were not justified in that there were/are no costs and/or expenses to
the defendants to substantiate these exorbitant application/management fees, basically
amounting to a Flip Tax. They are further an unreasonable condition placed upon the
fee simple rights of the unit owners and a restraint on the alienation of free transfer and
ownership of the real property.
63. There is no justifiable basis for said fees and there is no authority in the
governing documents to support it.
64. Said fees are unauthorized, illegal and unenforceable and materially alter the
contract between the plaintiffs and defendants and has substantially reduced the fair
market value of plaintiffs units.
65. The defendants did not have the unilateral authority to impose said fees, have
violated the Declaration and By-Laws and have unreasonably alienated and/or restricted
plaintiffs real property rights.
66. For all the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs have sustained irreparable
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand a judicial declaration that said application,
processing fees and/or flip taxes cannot be imposed by defendants and/or are excessive,
further demanding judgment striking said unlawfully imposed application, processing
fees and/or flip taxes, demanding that defendants return all monies collected thereon and
enjoining the defendants from attempting to collect these fees and/or similar types of fees
again.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
70. On or about this same time frame, the plaintiffs were approached by several
other unit owners who were not happy with the defendants and their management of the
building. They felt that the defendants were mismanaging the building, self-dealing,
harassing and bullying the inhabitants of the building, passing burdensome and
unreasonable house rules and policies, and were basically out of control.
71. Pursuant to the request of these other unit owners, in an effort to try to bring
some reasonableness to the situation, the plaintiffs applied to be members of the board of
managers and submitted their names for consideration and election in accordance with all
applicable rules.
72. In the weeks prior to the election, numerous unit owners were coerced and
intimidated by one or more of the defendants to support the defendants and not support
the plaintiffs. Numerous derogatory and false statement/information about the plaintiffs
was circulated by the defendants to the unit owners to discourage support and/or
participation.
73. At the election, which was run and controlled by the defendants, although
both plaintiffs names were originally properly duly submitted for consideration, the
defendants only submitted one name, and via undemocratic practices, were able to retain
control of the Condo Board.

74. A few months later, on April 13, 2015, the defendants issued a notice,
changing the qualifications for prospective board members, requiring that any
prospective board member MUST live in the condominium building for a minimum of
one (1) year or longer prior to the election to be considered as a new member for the
board of managers.
75. Said change is in direct violation of the qualifications for board members as
set forth in the Declaration and By-Laws.
76. At no time was any attempt made by the defendants to lawfully and properly
amend the Declaration and/or By-Laws to change the qualification of a board member as
specified.
77. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants knew that the plaintiffs
were not owner occupiers and that they rented out their two (2) units for investment
purposes and would not be able to meet this new residency requirement.
78. That this illegal, unauthorized and contrary to the Declaration and By-Laws
provision/notice circulated by the defendants, was specifically and intentionally issued to
prevent and/or block the plaintiffs, and/or any other investment owner who was not living
in the building, from ever serving on the board and questioning and challenging the out of
control actions and practices of the defendants.
79. That these actions were arbitrary, capricious, served no legitimate
relationship to the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled out plaintiffs and
investor owners for harmful treatment, was taken without notice or consideration of
relevant facts, is clearly beyond the scope of the boards authority, and was perpetrated in
bad faith.
80. That said action have materially altered the contract between the plaintiffs
and defendants and has substantially reduced the fair market value of plaintiffs units.
81. That for all the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs have sustained irreparable
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand a judicial declaration that said member
qualification restriction imposed by defendants is improper and must be stricken and/or
declared null and void, and that the defendants be enjoined from trying to institute this
type of restriction again.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
85. The aforesaid building is a condominium and the owners have fee simple
rights and ownership, subject to the limited Right of First Refusal.
86. That the Right of First Refusal gives a condo board the first right to purchase
and/or rent a unit under the same term and conditions as is being offered by the unit
owner/seller.
87. That the right to request personal and/or financial information from a
prospective buyer/renter prior to triggering the right of first refusal must be specifically
spelled out and permitted in the condo Declaration and/or By-Laws. Regardless, even if
the condo governing documents provide for this vetting information process, it must be
done reasonably and exercised in good faith by the board.
89. That the defendants, since taking control of the board, have systematically
and continuously changed the House Rules annually, making them stricter and more
burdensome each time; specifically as to purchases/sales/rentals. The present House
Rules specify, in addition to the large imposed fees for sales, purchases and/or rentals,
that prospective buyers/tenant must submit copies of: US Passports or US Residency
Cards, State Drivers License or ID Cards, Social Security Cards, Criminal Background
Check, Credit Report, three (3) years of Tax Returns, along with very detailed and
intrusive financial and employment information.
90. That the authority to request this information from a prospective buyer/renter
does not exist within the condominium Declaration and/or By-Laws and is therefore
unauthorized, unenforceable and only used to harass and dissuade prospective
buyers/tenants and those who wish to purchase as an investment.
91. Furthermore, much of the requested information is too extensive, invasive.
unnecessary, unreasonable, discriminatory and in violation of the Civil Rights Provisions
of the US Constitution and is therefore not only contrary to the condominiums governing
documents but against federal and state law and public policy.
92. That these requirements are arbitrary, capricious, served no legitimate
relationship to the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled out investor owners
for harmful treatment, was taken without notice or consideration of relevant facts, is
clearly beyond the scope of the boards authority, and was perpetrated in bad faith.
94. Said requirements have materially altered the contract between the plaintiffs
and defendants, has dissuaded would-be renters and/or buyers and has substantially
reduced the fair rental and market value of plaintiffs units.
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment declaring that said requirement is
inappropriate and/or excessive, demanding that said unlawfully imposed
restriction be stricken and/or declared null and void and that the defendants be enjoined
from requiring said intrusive and discriminatory information.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
99. Plaintiffs purchased both units with the specific intent to rent them out to
third parties for investment purposes. The defendants at all time knew this and were
aware of it.
100. Upon information and belief, when the plaintiff purchased Unit 1D there
were virtually no restrictions and/or fees on rentals.
101. Upon information and belief, sometime after the defendants took control,
they unilaterally changed the House Rules and instituted other burdensome requirements,
fees and policies in regards to use of the units, their potential rental and any future
renovations therein, that altered the Declaration and By-Laws, materially impacted and
infringed upon the free ownership rights of the units, and substantially denied the unit
occupants their quiet enjoyment therein. For instance:
a. Rental leases were restricted to only one (1) year terms,
b. All renewal leases were again subject to the right of first refusal,
c. $100 month surcharge if a guest is in the units
d. $500 per week contractor surcharge during renovations
e. $300 elevator fee during renovations
f. onerous and intrusive personal information application for renter.,
and there are others.
102. Unless the governing documents specifically permit the condominium board
to do this, the defendants are prohibited from imposing these restrictions, polices/ and/or
fees.
103. The defendants cannot change the House Rules in the guise of amending the
governing documents without following the prescribed amendment procedures within the
governing documents, otherwise it would be a de facto By-Law Amendment.
relationship to the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled out plaintiffs and
investor owners for harmful treatment, was taken without notice or consideration of
relevant facts, is clearly beyond the scope of the boards authority, and was perpetrated in
bad faith.
105. Said action have materially altered the contract between the plaintiffs and
defendants and has substantially reduced the fair market value of plaintiffs units.
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment declaring that said unlawfully
imposed restrictions/fees are null and void and must be stricken and/or substantially
curtailed and amended, and that the defendants be enjoined from this conduct again.
AS AND FOR A NINETH CAUSE OF ACTION
109. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation contained
in paragraph(s) 1 through 109 inclusive, with the same force and effect as though
more fully set forth at length herein.
110. While plaintiffs recognize that the condominium and the defendants have the
limited use of the Right of First Refusal in purchases/sales and/or initial rentals, the
defendants are misapplying it, abusing it and are not acting in good faith in its
application.
111. Upon information and belief, the defendants have and are continuing to try
to use the Right of First Refusal as an impediment to block, prohibit and/or make it
difficult for purchases and/or rentals; analogous to rights and practices of a cooperative
board.
112. The defendants have repeatedly demanded copies of any and/or all renewal
leases, even when no lease was required, and have clearly indicated that the renewal
lease(s) were subject to the Right of First Refusal. In furtherance of this policy, the
defendants have repeatedly directly approached plaintiffs tenants and have harassed
them in this regard.
113. Once the Right of First Refusal is waived in relation to a specific tenant, the
condominium board no longer has any Right of First Refusal rights in relation to that
particular tenant for that particular apartment in relation to any lease renewals.
114. These actions are arbitrary, capricious, served no legitimate relationship to
the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled out plaintiffs and investor owners
115. Said action have materially altered the contract between the plaintiffs and
defendants and has substantially reduced the fair market value of plaintiffs units.
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment directing that the defendants refrain
from this activity, properly employ the right of first refusal in these situations, and that
the defendants be enjoined from violating the parameters and purpose of it in all future
situations.
AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
120. In February 2017, the plaintiffs received notification from defendants that
the defendants had met and voted on January 19, 2017, to impose a $200 per month
rental surcharge for each unit rented; to go into effect on January 1, 2018, and if said fee
was not paid, the unit owner would be fined $5000, a lien imposed on their respective
unit, and/or foreclosure proceedings would be commenced.
121. Plaintiffs immediately voiced their objection thereto and again claimed that
the defendants did not have the authority to impose said fee and further claimed that said
surcharge was targeted towards rental units, was discriminatory, was unauthorized
and contrary to the Declaration and By-Laws.
122. That absent specific authority in the Declaration and/or By-Laws, the
defendants have no authority to impose this sub-let fee/surcharge, nor impose any
additional penalties for failing to pay.
123. That said $200 surcharge/sublet fee was instituted in bad faith, outside the
scope of their authority, and for no legitimate purpose by the defendants.
124. That said surcharge/sublet fee, was imposed by the defendants via a
unilateral House Rule amendment and was imposed in direct contradiction and conflict to
the Declaration and By-Laws.
125. That said surcharge/sublet fee financially and materially altered the
Declaration and By-Laws, which are binding contracts between the Condo Board and all
unit owners.
to freely transfer and/or rent their fee simple condo real property and is an unlawful and
unauthorized Restraint on Alienation
127. That the action taken by the defendants was unreasonable in
that their was no justifiable and/or lawful reason to impose said fee, and was imposed to
reduce plaintiffs profit and was part of a systematic conscious and intentional effort by
defendants to force plaintiffs to sell their units.
128. That the defendants action was unreasonable for the further reason that it
caused a substantial reduction in the fair market value of the plaintiffs units and a
reduction in the net rental income received.
129. That these actions are arbitrary, capricious, served no legitimate relationship
to the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled out plaintiffs and investor owners
130. That said action have materially altered the contract between the plaintiffs
and defendants and has substantially reduced the fair market value of plaintiffs units.
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment declaring that said unlawfully
imposed rental sublet/surcharge fee must be stricken and declared null and void and that
the defendants be enjoined from attempting to impose this type of fee again.
AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
135. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants were in control of the
condominium building.
136. Without consulting with anyone and/or soliciting unit owner approval and/or
input, the defendants caused the entranceway lobby walls to be painted and/or covered
with right wing political propaganda, murals, pictures, and other offensive materials,
causing alarm, annoyance and monetary devaluation of the entire building.
137. That the plaintiffs expressed their disapproval to the defendants and
requested that said offensive material covering the lobby walls be removed and replaced
with neutral non-political coverings, but the defendants refused.

138. That this action was unreasonable for the further reason that it was not only
visually offensive to many but it caused a substantial reduction in the fair market value of
the entire building and the plaintiffs units and a reduction in the net rental income
received.
139. That these actions by the defendant are arbitrary, capricious, serve no
legitimate relationship to the welfare of the condominium, was installed without notice or
consideration of relevant facts, and it was clearly beyond the scope of the boards
authority to do it..
140. Said offensive political materials covering the lobby walls have
materially altered the contract between the plaintiffs and defendants and have
substantially reduced the fair market value of the entire condo and plaintiffs units.
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment directing the defendants to paint
over and/or remove said offensive political propaganda from the lobby walls, replace it
with neutral non-political content and that the defendants be enjoined from this conduct.
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
145. Each holiday the defendants erect, display and/or maintain within the lobby
area holiday decorations.
146. Many of these holiday displays and decorations are inflatable
devices/figurines, and/or items that make noise and/or play loud holiday music constantly
24/7 throughout the day/night.
147. These inflatable devices/figurines are operated by air blowers/compressors
which make and/or create excessive and unreasonable and prohibited noises which are a
menace to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity of the
condominium unit owners and inhabitants; especially those that are on the first floor in
the vicinity of the lobby and where the holiday decorations are displayed.
148. The musical displays play loud holiday music 24/7 throughout the day/night
which make and/or create excessive and unreasonable and prohibited noises which are a
menace to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity of the
condominium unit owners and inhabitants; especially those that are on the first floor in
the vicinity of the lobby and where the holiday decorations are displayed.
149. Unit 1D, which is owned by the plaintiffs, is immediately adjacent to the
lobby area where all these holiday decorations are displayed.
150. The music/noise has caused plaintiffs tenants in Unit 1D to experience great
annoyance and alarm and is denying them of their quiet enjoyment of their rented unit.
151. Despite the plaintiffs and other condo residents repeated efforts to have the
defendants stop and/or reduce the duration and/or the extent of the noise level, the
defendants have refused to do so. Rather, in bad faith, the defendants have actually
increased the sound level, extent and duration of the annoyance.
152. That these actions by the defendants are unreasonable for the further reason
that it has caused a substantial reduction in the fair market value of the plaintiffs units
and a reduction in the net rental income received.
153. These actions by the defendant are arbitrary, capricious, serve no legitimate
relationship to the welfare of the condominium, were perpetrated without notice or
consideration of relevant facts, and were clearly beyond the scope of the boards authority
to do it.
154. Said excessive noise have materially altered the contract between the
plaintiffs and defendants and have substantially reduced the fair market value of
plaintiffs units.
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment directing the defendants to refrain
from making excessive noise/music and that the defendants be enjoined from this
conduct in the future.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

159. The defendants have unlawfully imposed rules, restrictions and policies
which they were/are not empowered to impose.
160. Any unit owner and/or tenant who does/did not strictly comply with said
restrictions and/or polices were fined between $500-$5000.
161. For any condo board to impose a fine, they must have explicit authority
from the condo governing documents.
162. The Declaration and By-Laws of this condominium do not specifically
delineate and/or permit fines.
163. Even if the governing documents permitted the defendants to impose a fine
for some wrongdoing, said fine must represent a reasonable approximation of the actual
loss and/or expense incurred by the condominium.
164. Further, the activity and/or wrongdoing to be fined must be specifically
mentioned and prohibited in the governing documents.
165. The actions of the defendants to impose fine(s) is unauthorized, unlawful
and contrary to the Declaration and By-Laws. Further, the fines imposed are unduly
excessive, against public policy, vague, arbitrary and an unreasonable financial penalty.
166. These fines imposed by the defendant are arbitrary, capricious, serve no
legitimate relationship to the welfare of the condominium, were initiated without notice
or consideration of relevant facts, and were clearly beyond the scope of the defendants
authority to impose them.

167. Said imposition of these excessive fines have materially altered the contract
between the plaintiffs and defendants and have substantially reduced the fair market
value of plaintiffs units.
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment declaring/directing that the fines be
stricken, voided and/or declared null and that the defendants be directed to refund the
monies paid by all unit owners/tenants for this unauthorized and excessive fines and that
the defendants be enjoined from trying to impose these unreasonable fines again.
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
172. On February 9, 2017, the plaintiffs received a Notice of Demand from the
defendants regarding plaintiffs tenant in 1D.
173. That said notice imposed a fine of $500 on the 1D tenant and/or plaintiffs
for alleged conduct by said tenant in violation of the House Rules.

174. That the conduct allegedly in violation of the House Rules was the disposal
by the tenant of a Christmas Tree at the curbside after the Holiday Season.
175. That said notice further claimed that plaintiffs tenant in 1D was a deranged,
vile, animalistic and despicable for this conduct.
176. Upon information and belief, the tenant in 1D was disposing a Christmas
Tree at the curbside pursuant to the instructions of the NYC Department of Sanitation and
all applicable NYC laws, ordinances and/or instructions.
177. That at no time hereafter mentioned did the Condo Declaration and/or By-
Laws ever prohibit this conduct, nor permit a fine and/or penalty for it.
178. No Declaration and/or By-Law provision is permitted to be contrary and/or
in conflict with NYC Laws and/or ordinances.
179. That at no time hereafter mentioned did the Condo House Rules ever
prohibit, regulate and/or even remotely address this conduct.
180. That the defendants have no right and/or jurisdiction over this conduct in
that the disposal of a Christmas Tree is not only regulated and permitted under NYC Law,
it occurred at the curbside on NYC property and not on condo property.
181. Even if the governing documents permitted the defendants to impose a fine
for some wrongdoing, the prohibited wrongdoing must be specifically defined in the
governing documents, and said fine must represent a reasonable approximation of the
actual loss and/or expense incurred by the condominium.
182. While this alleged violation cost the condo nothing, the governing
documents do not prohibit this conduct, nor do they permit any fine for it.
183. The actions of the defendants to impose fine(s) is unauthorized, unlawful
and contrary to the Declaration and By-Laws. Further, the fines imposed are unduly
excessive, against public policy, vague, arbitrary and an unreasonable financial penalty.
184. These fines imposed by the defendant are arbitrary, capricious, serve no
legitimate relationship to the welfare of the condominium, were initiated without notice
or consideration of relevant facts, and were clearly beyond the scope of the defendants
authority to impose them and was perpetrated in bad faith.
185. Said imposition of these excessive fines have materially altered the contract
between the plaintiffs and defendants and have substantially reduced the fair market
value of plaintiffs units.
monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment declaring/directing that this fine be
stricken, voided and/or declared null and that the defendants be enjoined from trying to
impose these types of fines again.
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
190. That in regards to the 2-19-17 notice and the unlawful, unauthorized and
unenforceable fine thereon, the defendants undertook a series of actions to harass, annoy,
embarrass and alarm the tenants in 1D.
191. That the defendants did repeatedly circulate and post notices, with false
derogatory, libelous and slanderous pictures and/or language against said tenants,
throughout the condo building, lobby area and directly on the front door of apartment 1D.
192. That this repeated action became so annoying and troubling for said tenant
that they were compelled to file a criminal complaint with the NYPD.
192. That the aforesaid notices containing false derogatory information were
further sent directly to the tenants place of employment and elsewhere to third parties
with the specific intent to harass, embarrass and annoy said tenants with their respective
employers, and cause them financial hardship.
193. Upon information and belief, that there was no just and/or legal reason for
the aforesaid actions and it was initiated and conducted by the defendants specifically to
force the tenants in apartment 1D to move and cause plaintiffs economic loss.
relationship to the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled out the plaintiffs and
plaintiffs tenant in 1D and subjected them to harmful treatment, was taken without notice
or consideration of relevant facts, is clearly beyond the scope of the boards authority, and
was perpetrated in bad faith.

195. That this conduct was so egregious and intentionally perpetrated by the
defendants that it is a separate criminal and/or tortious act in and of itself.
196. For all the reasons stated above, the tenant in 1D has expressed a desire to
leave, and plaintiffs had to reduce the rent in order to get them to stay. Plaintiffs have
sustained irreparable monetary harm.
197. Plaintiffs demand damages for the lost rental income and desire a judicial
determination of their rights and duties, and a declaration as to the validity of the actions
of the defendants..
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment in the amount of $1200 for lost
rental income and directing that the defendants be ordered and directed to refrain from
this conduct and that the defendants be enjoined from doing it again.
AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
200. That the defendants recently erected a large structure/shed in the rear yard of
the condo building.
201. That said structure was erected/built by an unlicensed contractor, without
any plans and/or specifications on file with the NYC Building Department.
202. That said structure does not have a certificate of occupancy and is an illegal
structure.
203. That several violations and open complaints have been issued by the NYC
Building Departments against the defendants for this illegal structure/shed.
204. That said large illegal structure/shed was erected immediately outside and
adjacent to the bedroom and kitchen windows of plaintiffs apartment 1D and partially
block/deprive the air, view and light from those windows for the inhabitants of apartment
1D, and further creates a dangerous hazard for emergency egress and access for would-be
burglars.
205. That this illegal structure/shed has caused the present tenants in apartment
1D a deprivation of the air, view and light that they had when they first moved in.
206. That the erection of this illegal structure/shed has caused a substantial
reduction in the fair market rental/sale value of the plaintiffs unit 1D and will dissuade
would-be prospective renters/buyers from renting/buying due to the loss of this air, view
and light.
207. That the erection of this illegal building/shed directly outside plaintiffs
apartment 1D by the defendants was done specifically and intentionally to try to force
plaintiffs tenant in 1D to move, to reduce the fair market sale/rental value of said unit
and to try to force the plaintiffs to sell their unit(s).
208. That despite the plaintiffs repeated efforts to try to get the defendants to
remove this illegal structure, the defendants have refused.
209. That there was no just and/or legal reason for this structure. That is was
arbitrary, capricious, served no legitimate relationship to the welfare of the condominium,

deliberately singled out the plaintiffs and their tenants in 1D, subjected the plaintiffs to
harmful treatment, was taken without notice or consideration of relevant facts, is clearly
beyond the scope of the boards authority, and was perpetrated in bad faith.
monetary harm.
declaration as to the validity of the actions of the defendants and monetary compensation
for the loss in value of apartment 1D.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment directing that the defendants be
ordered to immediately remove said illegal structure/shed and refrain from trying to erect
it again and money damages in the amount of $250,000.00.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
215. The defendants have initiated numerous changes, demands and policies
without seeking unit owner approval in direct violation of the Declaration, By-Laws and
Condo Act.
216. The defendants have further taken numerous aggressive and illegal actions
directly against the plaintiffs and/or their tenants in an attempt to reduce the value of
plaintiffs units, infringe upon plaintiffs fee simple rights, and to try to force the tenants to
leave.
217. The plaintiffs have repeatedly protested and made numerous amicable
attempts to have the defendants act reasonably, in good faith, in accordance with the
governing documents of the condo.
218. That the defendants have refused to act responsibly, have undertaken a
conscious and systematic policy to do everything they could to reduce the desirability and
profitability of plaintiffs units, and infringe upon the plaintiffs fee simple ownership
rights therein.
218. That the defendants have brazenly and blatantly, on several occasions, made
their intentions very clear. That the defendants would do everything they could to try to
force the plaintiffs to sell their investment units.
219. That there was no just and/or legal reason for the magnitude and extent of all
the fines, fees, polices and hostile actions of the defendants against the plaintiffs and/or
their tenants. That all these actions were intentionally initiated and conducted by the
defendants specifically to try to force the plaintiffs to sell their units.
220. That the actions of the defendants were arbitrary, capricious, served no
legitimate relationship to the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled out the
plaintiffs and subjected the plaintiffs to harmful treatment, was taken without notice or
consideration of relevant facts, is clearly beyond the scope of the boards authority, and
was perpetrated in bad faith.

monetary harm.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment directing that the defendants be
ordered and directed to refrain from this conduct and that the defendants be enjoined
from doing it again.
AS AND FOR A EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
226. That the NYS Condo Act, the condo Declaration and By-Laws are the
governing documents between the unit owners and the condominium board.
227. The relationship between the condominium unit owners and the condo board
is contractual, and the governing documents spell out the legal rights between the parties.
228. That for all the allegations and statements made in the prior causes of action,
the defendants; The 47-55 39th Place Condominium, have breached the contract with the
plaintiffs, as the fee simple owners of two units.

monetary harm due to this breach of contract.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants; The 47-55
39th Place Condominium, for breach of contract in the amount of $500,000.00 for each
unit; totaling $1,000,000.00.
AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
231. That the NYS Condo Act, the condo Declaration and By-Laws are the
governing documents between the unit owners and the condominium board.
232. That the defendants had a fiduciary duty to act reasonably, responsibly and
in accordance with all the governing documents.
the actions of the defendants; The 47-55 39th Place Condominium, were arbitrary,
capricious, served no legitimate relationship to the welfare of the condominium,
deliberately singled out the plaintiffs and subjected the plaintiffs to harmful treatment,
was taken without notice or consideration of relevant facts, was/is clearly beyond the
scope of the boards authority, and was perpetrated in bad faith.
monetary harm due to this breach of fiduciary duty.
39th Place Condominium, for Breach of Fiduciary Duty in the amount of $500,000.00 for
each unit; totaling $1,000,000.00.
AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
236. The totality and extent of the defendants numerous, fines, fees, policies and
actions were so targeted, burdensome and egregious as to defy reasonableness, proper
business judgment and logic and were clearly perpetrated and executed in bad faith.
the actions of the defendants were arbitrary, capricious, served no legitimate relationship
to the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled out the plaintiffs and subjected
the plaintiffs to harmful treatment, was taken without notice or consideration of relevant
facts, is clearly beyond the scope of the boards authority, and was perpetrated in bad
faith.
monetary harm due to this blatant disregard for the governing documents and
intentionally inflicted conduct and bad faith.
239. That this was a clear breach of the defendants fiduciary duties.
240. This breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants is so egregious that the
defendants and their conduct must be punished to deter this conduct.
39th Place Condominium, for Punitive Damages in the amount of $250,000.00.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

242. When individual board members actively participate in egregious conduct
that has no legitimate purpose and is clearly contrary and in violation of governing
documents, they can be held personally accountable.
243. The individual board members all collectively were involved in the policies
and actions listed in the prior causes of actions.
244. That all written notices by defendants, responses to plaintiffs objections and
personal statements actually made by board officers/members at board meetings,
confirmed that all the individual named defendants herein, were all in agreement, a part
of this conspiracy to intentionally deprive plaintiffs and other unit owners of their fees
simple ownership rights. That the individual defendants were all actually involved,
actively participated and are independently personally responsible for this egregious
tortious conduct.
245. That for all the allegations and statements made in the prior causes of
action, the actions of the individual defendants named herein were arbitrary, capricious,
served no legitimate relationship to the welfare of the condominium, deliberately singled
out the plaintiffs and subjected the plaintiffs and/or their tenants to harmful treatment,
was taken without notice or consideration of relevant facts, is clearly beyond the scope of
the boards authority, and was perpetrated in bad faith.
monetary harm due to this blatant disregard for the governing documents and
intentionally inflicted conduct and bad faith by the individually named defendants.
247. That the individually named defendants also had a fiduciary duty to act
reasonably, responsibly and in accordance with all the governing documents.
248. That the individually named defendants breached this fiduciary duty they
had to the plaintiffs and all unit owners.
249. That this breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants is so egregious that the
defendants and their conduct must be punished to deter this conduct.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment personally against the individual
named defendants for Punitive Damages in the amount of $50,000.00 each; respectively.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
251. Upon information and belief, the major initiator and instigator of all the
fines, penalties, burdensome policies and tortious egregious conduct was Board Member,
Project Manager and Board Secretary; Neal Milano.
252. Upon information and belief, it is Neal Milano who, with the permission
and/or authority of the individual board members, initiated most of the harassment
mentioned in the prior causes of action.
253. Upon information and belief, prior to 2011, Neal Milano and/or one of his
family members, owed a very large monetary assessment to the then condominium board
for the unit(s) he/they owned and occupied.

254. That said assessment was reflected in an outstanding lien against the units
Neal Milano and/or his family owned and occupied.
255. That once Neal Milano and the new board was able to seize control of the
condo board, remove the private managing agent, and have the new board, which he was
a member/officer of, self-manage the condominium, he conspired and colluded with other
board members, to extinguish and remove said lien without paying any part thereof.
256. That at no time herein were the unit owners contacted, apprised of the
situation and asked to vote thereon.
257. That pursuant to the governing documents this action would have required
unit owner approval.
258. That this self-dealing and collusion was done in direct violation of the
Condo Declaration and By-Laws and was unauthorized and illegal.
259. That the plaintiffs, condo and all unit owners were damaged in that they
were all deprived of the value of the assessment, which could be used for the greater
condo good.
260. For all the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs and all condo unit owners
have sustained irreparable monetary harm.
261. That a formal accounting is required to investigate the extent of the
collusion and self-dealing on the part of Neal Milano and the other named defendants..
262. That Neal Milano must be removed as Secretary, Board Member and/or
Project Manager of the condo board of managers immediately, and he must not be
allowed to deal with the management of the condo and/or the books and records until
such time as the extent of the aforesaid can be determined.

declaration as to the validity of the actions of the defendants and Neal Milano.
circumstances in order that plaintiffs may ascertain their rights as alleged. Plaintiffs and
all unit owners will continue to suffer the above-described harm unless and until such
declaration is made.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment directing that Neal Milano be
removed as Board Secretary, Member and/or Project Manager of the condominium
immediately, and that the defendants be directed to turn over and disclose all the books
and records involving this matter and any other the court deems just and proper.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
266. Plaintiffs made numerous attempts to amicably resolve this matter with
defendants.
267. Plaintiffs, prior to commencing this action, in several letters, delineated
in great detail all the issues involved, provided the controlling NY authority in support
thereon and gave the defendants ample time to correct and/or satisfactorily address these
issues.
268. Defendants failed and/or refused to even make an attempt to justify their
Actions and/or meet with the plaintiffs, and they continued to act in bad faith.
269. The plaintiffs were left no choice but to commence this action to safe guard
their respective legal rights. The expected reasonable legal cost to prosecute said matter is
approximately $50,000.00.
270. Public Policy and precedence permit for attorneys fees when a condo board
acts unreasonably, in bad faith and grossly outside the boundaries of the governing
documents.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment for Attorneys Fees in the
amount of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants for the
requested relief in the separate causes of action, plus interest, costs, disbursements,
reasonable attorneys fees over and above what has already been requested, plus any
and all remedies this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 17, 2017

Flushing, New York
Yours, etc.
______________________________
IANNECE & CALVACCA, ESQS
By: Lynn Calvacca
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
160-05 Horace Harding Expwy
Flushing, New York 11365
(718) 961-5550

Complaint Against Condo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Against Condo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

-against- Plaintiffs designate

Basis of Venue is Defendants

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, IANNECE & CALVACCA, ESQS.,

and prior and after thereto as follows:

reside in the County of Queens, State of New York.

(purchased in 2014), respectively, in the condominium building located at 47-55 39th

Queens; incorporated here by reference.

Condominium Board and unit owners.

5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, No Amendments to the By-Laws have

Laws and the Condo Act.

of the affairs of the Condominium Board and unit owners.

9. That attached as an Addendum to said Declaration and By-Laws were Rules

and/or conditions of the Condo Act, Declaration and/or By-Laws.

called and referred to as House Rules.

12. That under the guise of enacting House Rule changes/amendments, a

and/or amend same.

services of a private independent Managing Agency to collect the common charges,

when plaintiffs purchased Unit 1D in 2008.

significant fees and/or restrictions of any kind.

Defendants herein. (hereafter Condo Board)

capacity and control when plaintiffs purchased Unit 4B in April 2014.

units to tenants since the purchase of each respective unit.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

fully set forth at length herein.

interview and application fee.

be instituted without the requisite number of unit owners approval.

boards in the City of New York vicinity.

27. That said fee was unauthorized, illegal and unenforceable.

rights, and is an unlawful and unauthorized Restraint on Alienation.

would-be prospective renters from renting by imposing an unnecessary and burdensome

difficulty renting said unit. To overcome this impediment, as an incentive and

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

fully set forth at length herein.

mandatory non-refundable rental interview/application fee was doubled and increased to

a lien imposed on their respective unit, and/or foreclosure proceedings would be

authority, and for no legitimate purpose by the defendants.

violation to the Declaration and By-Laws.

41. That due to this unreasonably large unjustified application/interview fee,

said fee and pay it on behalf of any prospective tenant.

requisite unit owners approval.

unauthorized Restraint on Alienation

was no interview at all.

would-be prospective renters from renting by imposing an unnecessary and burdensome

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

fully set forth at length herein.

47. On June 7, 2015, in retaliation to plaintiffs previous protests, the defendants

mandatory non-refundable rental/application fee to $2500.

for this type of fee.

plaintiffs real property rights.

have sustained irreparable monetary harm.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs seeks a judicial declaration that said rental application

striking said unlawfully imposed rental/application fees, demanding that defendants

collect this fee or any similar type of fee again.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

fully set forth at length herein.

were no restrictions and/or transfer and/or processing fees of any kind.

subject to a $850 Application Fee and a $1500 Management Fee.

right of first refusal and the purchase could not be consummated.

alienation on the plaintiffs ownership and/or transfer rights.

and $850 Application Fee paid.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

fully set forth at length herein.

another House Rule Amendment imposing and increasing additional purchase/sale