In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York upheld a lower court's ruling that dismissed claims by Alexander and Promiti Haubold against Towers on the Park Condominium. The court ruled that the Haubolds failed to establish essential elements of their claims, which included tortious interference with business relations and breach of fiduciary duty. This ruling affects the Haubolds and other condominium owners who may face similar disputes with their condominium boards.
The case, Haubold v. Towers on the Park Condominium, was filed under Index No. 157881/20 and Appeal No. 7149. The decision was entered on October 6, 2026, and the court unanimously affirmed the lower court's order without costs. This case highlights the complexities involved in condominium governance and the legal challenges that can arise when owners feel aggrieved by board actions.
The parties involved in this case are Alexander and Promiti Haubold, the plaintiffs, and Towers on the Park Condominium, the defendants. The Haubolds claimed that the condominium's board interfered with their attempts to sell their combined units. They alleged that the board's actions led to a prospective buyer backing out of the sale. The dispute escalated to the Supreme Court of New York County, where the defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the complaint.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on June 10, 2025. The court found that the Haubolds did not have a valid contract for the sale of their units, which is a critical element in proving tortious interference. The Haubolds argued that the board's management of the condominium and the minutes of board meetings discouraged potential buyers, but the court found no evidence of wrongful conduct by the board.
The Appellate Division's ruling emphasized that the Haubolds failed to demonstrate that the board's actions constituted tortious interference. The court stated, "The record shows that plaintiffs did not enter into a contract of sale for their combined condominium units in 2017, negating a central element of the claim." The court also noted that the Haubolds did not identify any specific actions taken by the defendants that would have interfered with their sale.
Furthermore, the court addressed the Haubolds' claim of breach of fiduciary duty, stating that they did not provide evidence of independent wrongful conduct by any board member or any damages resulting from the board's actions. The court remarked, "In the absence of independent wrongful conduct by any board member, the business judgment rule requires courts to defer to the board's determination so long as the board acts in good faith, within the scope of its authority under the bylaws, and to further a legitimate interest of the condominium."
The ruling has significant implications for condominium owners and boards alike. It reinforces the concept that condominium boards have broad authority to manage their properties as long as they act within their bylaws and in good faith. The decision may discourage similar claims from other owners who may feel aggrieved by board decisions, knowing that proving tortious interference or breach of fiduciary duty requires substantial evidence of wrongful conduct.
Moving forward, this ruling may serve as a precedent for future cases involving condominium governance and disputes between owners and boards. It clarifies the legal standards required to prove claims of tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty in the context of condominium associations. Owners may need to be more cautious and prepared when bringing such claims, as the court's decision indicates a high burden of proof.
As for the Haubolds, they have the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, although it is unclear if they will pursue this route. The court filing did not provide information on whether there are any related cases pending that could impact this decision. For now, the ruling stands, and the Haubolds must navigate the implications of this legal setback.