On May 24, 2022, the Honorable Barry E. Warhit (NYS Sup. Ct., Westchester County) issued what may be the first Supreme Court decision concerning the validity of condominium board electronic voting requirements under June 17, 2020 amendments to the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law (NPCL). In granting respondents’ motion to dismiss a petition challenging such voting requirements, the Court ruled that a condominium board was permitted to “require shareholders to use a pre-designated email address for proxy voting, to authenticate such email address prior to the meeting, and that such requirement was reasonable as a matter of law.”
In The Lifesavers Building Homeowners Group, et al. v. Board of Managers of the Landmark Condominium et al. (Index No. 67545/2021), a group of unit owners in the 190 residential unit Landmark Condominium located in Port Chester (the “Condominium”), challenged the purported re-election of certain respondents to the Condominium’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). As explained by the Court, petitioners challenged the validity of a November 3, 2021 election, alleging that, “by e-mails disseminated October 20, 2021, the respondents improperly imposed new electronic proxy voting procedures with an email verification requirement”, according to which unit owners had to (i) authenticate e-mail addresses to be used for voting in the election and (ii) submit proxies using an electronic form sent directly to the accountant responsible for tabulating the results-of the election. Rather than comply, petitioners collected paper proxies and attempted to submit them as attachments to unauthenticated email addresses, which they argue complies with the Condominium’s By-Laws. Those proxies were not counted during the November 3, 2021 election. Respondents determined that a there was no quorum at that meeting and that the members of the Board would therefore
continue to serve for another year.
The Board moved to dismiss, arguing that the proxies were defective and that the new electronic proxy voting procedures were authorized by amendments to NPCL §603, enacted in response to the COVID pandemic, and permitting the Board in its sole discretion to conduct electronic meetings and to implement “reasonable measures” verify that each person participating electronically ls a member or a proxy of a (former NPCL §603(a)).
In deciding the motion to dismiss, the Court agreed with the respondent’s argument that the NPCL 603(a) amendment authorized the Board to requite shareholders to use a pre- designated e-mail address for proxy voting, to authentic such e-mail address prior to the meeting, and that the requirement was reasonable as a matter of law. As amended and quoted by the Court, NPCL §603(a) provides as follows:
Meetings of members may be held at such place, within or without this state, as may be fixed by or under the by-laws, or, if not so fixed, as determined by the board of directors. For the duration of the state disaster emergency declared by executive order two hundred two that began on March Seventh, two thousand twenty, the board of directors may, in its sole discretion, determine that meetings of members be held partially or solely by means of electronic communication, the electronic service and/or platform by which the meeting is held shall be the place of the meeting for purposes of this article if a meeting is held solely by means of electronic communication. Meetings conducted partially or solely by means of electronic communications in reliance upon this paragraph, and any member’s electronic participation in such meetings shall be subject to those guidelines and procedures as the board adopts, provided the board shall implement reasonable measures to: (1) verify that each person participating electronically is a member or a proxy of a member; (2) provide each member participating electronically with a reasonable opportunity to participate in the meeting, including an opportunity to propose, object to, and vote upon a specific action to be taken by the members, and to see, read or hear the proceedings of the meeting substantially concurrently with those proceedings; and (3) record and maintain a record of any votes or other actions taken by electronic communication at the meeting.
(see NPCL 603(a)). To the extent the “reasonableness” of the measures implemented by the board was challenged, it was protected by the business judgment rule, which prevented further Judicial scrutiny of the Board’s electronic voting procedures. In granting respondents’ motion to dismiss, the Court took particular note of the fact that petitioners did not even attempt to utilize the e-mail verification procedure. COVID-related electronic communications provisions appear increasingly accepted as the new normal in a broadening range of different circumstances. To the extent that trend continues, it becomes increasingly important to adapt to such changes. Here, the Court’s decision may further signal that growing trend.
* David is Senior Counsel at Starr Associates LLP and a member of the firm’s litigation department. He can be reached at email@example.com or (212) 620-2694.
Our team has had the pleasure of working with Starr Associates on our project at 150 Rivington Street. The entire Starr team was a tremendous asset to the success of our project. Through very challenging times, Starr Associates came through time and time again. It is an honor to work with everyone at Starr!
I have known Allan Starr for many years and worked with him on many projects. He has always exceeded my expectations. He not only knows the ins and outs of the law, but knows how to make the whole process easy and quick. I’ve found him to possess an incredibly astute legal mind, combined with a common sense approach that always accomplishes my goals. He’s not only a gentleman and a friend, but a brilliant lawyer.
It has been an absolute pleasure working with Allan Starr and Samantha Sheeber over the past twelve years. They are not only the utmost professionals, but also wonderful people who I have grown to love like family. I trust them with all of my new development projects and private clients, and we support each other in our business and personal lives. Starr Associates LLP has always been there for me and my clients and I would recommend them as highly as I recommend anyone.
Allan and I have worked together for decades; along the way, I have worked with Samantha Sheeber, Andrea Roschelle, John Rodriguez and Erica Starr and have always been pleased with their quick and accurate responses. They have worked with us on closings (with great and efficient results), restatements of stale plans, amendments and other assorted AG requirements, always on a timely and cost-effective basis.
“Working with Starr has been great on three condo projects in Manhattan to date. The accessibility and direct attention of the partners is unsurpassed. Allan and Sam have the interests of the owner at heart and make every effort to protect our interests in a responsible and defensible manner. Their practical approach and deep knowledge of the offering plan process and requirements of the AG office combine to make a highly effective and efficient package. At the associate level they have good support as well. The closing office has to be the best in NY – never a failed closing in 15 years. We are repeat customers and will be going forward.”
“Samantha Sheeber is a partner in making transactions successful. She’s resourceful, respected, smart, funny as hell, and is swift to constantly embarrass us (and clients) because she sees the end while we all muddle in the middle. She saves time. She is selfless and fast and conscientious. She’s loyal to the notion of selflessly getting stuff done. She cultivates great talent. And she makes the process fun, even when she is mad at us for asking the same impossible question 11 times hoping for a new result (a solution for which — by the way — she often discovers).”
“As an active developer in New York City, Magnum Real Estate Group is proud to have partnered with Starr Associates, LLP as our legal counsel in 5 significant projects valued at approximately $800 million. Over the last 5 years, Starr has provided us with exceptional advice on condominium Offering Plans and related transactions. Partner Samantha Sheeber, Esq. and her team have professionally guided us, and provided creative and effective solutions when needed.”
“I have had the fortunate opportunity, over the past 16 years, to work with Allan Starr and Samantha Sheeber who I consider to be experts in the field of real estate law. They, together with their team, have a deep understanding of Attorney General Offering Plan registrations and continually seek to identify creative solutions to complicated issues. Their level of integrity and commitment are unwavering no matter how large or small a project. I completely endorse Starr Associates LLP and look forward to our mutual continued success.”
“Starr Associates’ specialty in the creation and representation of condominiums is unmatched. Their knowledge, experience and professionalism in the office condominium sector is best-in-class. Starr Associates’ hard work and expertise has been critical to the success of our firm’s office condominium projects.”
“Starr Associates have been our condominium attorneys for many years. Their counsel goes well beyond just drafting the condominium documents, which of course they do extremely well. They also represent us and our brand with condominium unit purchasers, and with our lenders and partners on condominium related matters. We have always found Starr’s attorneys to be professional, responsive and cost-conscious.”