Justice Court Mutual Housing Cooperative, Inc. v. Sandow
270 N.Y.S.2d 829, 50 Misc. 2d 541, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1821 (1966)
Rule of Law:
A cooperative housing corporation's board of directors has the power to enact rules and regulations pertaining to the use and occupancy of its premises, but such rules must be reasonable and cannot arbitrarily restrict shareholder-tenants' fundamental mode of living or disturb vested rights.
Facts:
- The plaintiff is a cooperative housing corporation that operates an apartment building in Queens County.
- The defendants are shareholder-tenants who reside in a three-bedroom apartment in the plaintiff’s building with their two daughters.
- The defendants' two daughters are musical artists (one playing violin, the other flute) and are required to practice their instruments at least three and a half hours daily for their training.
- The defendants moved into the building in 1959 after being assured by the plaintiff’s sponsor that their daughters would be permitted to practice their art.
- Until April 29, 1965, the daughters were allowed to practice their instruments without interference.
- Following complaints from tenants in adjoining apartment units, particularly about the loud, piercing sound of the flute, the plaintiff’s board of directors adopted a rule restricting musical instrument playing to specific hours (10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays) and limiting practice to one and a half hours per day per person unless special approval was requested.
- The defendants refused to comply with the newly adopted rule and regulation.
- The corporate by-laws empower the board of directors to promulgate rules regarding the use and occupancy of the premises, and the proprietary lease prohibits tenants from causing unreasonable noises or otherwise interfering with other occupants.
Procedural Posture:
- After the defendants refused to comply with the newly adopted rule restricting musical instrument playing, the plaintiff cooperative housing corporation commenced a summary proceeding against them in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens.
- The summary proceeding in the Civil Court was dismissed without prejudice.
- The plaintiff subsequently initiated an action in the Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County, seeking a declaratory judgment to affirm the validity and enforceability of the musical instrument rule and a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from violating it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a cooperative housing corporation's board of directors have the power to enact and enforce a rule that arbitrarily and unreasonably restricts shareholder-tenants' use of musical instruments within their apartment, thereby impacting their mode of living and ability to pursue artistic training?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Irwin Shapiro, J.
No, a cooperative housing corporation's board of directors does not have the power to enact and enforce a rule that arbitrarily and unreasonably restricts shareholder-tenants' use of musical instruments within their apartment, as such rules unduly impact their mode of living and ability to pursue artistic training. The court held that while a cooperative corporation has the power to enact rules, these rules, to be valid, must be reasonable and cannot be arbitrary or disturb vested rights, as established in Thousand Is. Park Assn. v. Tucker. The court distinguished regulations concerning animals or mechanical devices (which relate to property use, safety, or sanitation) from the current rule, which it found attempts to regulate the fundamental 'mode of living' of occupants. The court found the one and a half-hour per person per day restriction to be arbitrary because it would hinder musicians from acquiring and maintaining proficiency and because it bore no reasonable relationship to the alleged mischief. For instance, four individuals playing for 1.5 hours each (totaling 6 hours) would be permissible, yet one person playing for 3 hours would not, despite potentially similar disturbance. Furthermore, the court found the 8:00 p.m. playing prohibition arbitrary and unreasonable, as it effectively bans musical instrument use completely for most city dwellers after work or school, thereby preventing normal social gatherings or avocational pursuits. The court concluded that some level of noise is an inherent aspect of modern civilization and ruled the board's musical instrument regulations to be arbitrary and unreasonable, thus unenforceable.
Analysis:
This case sets an important precedent by limiting the scope of power of cooperative and potentially homeowners' association boards to regulate the private lives of their residents. It distinguishes between regulations concerning property upkeep, safety, or basic sanitation (which are generally upheld) and those attempting to control personal lifestyle choices within a dwelling. The ruling underscores the principle that even broadly granted rule-making authority is subject to a reasonableness standard, preventing arbitrary restrictions on fundamental activities that do not genuinely constitute a nuisance. This decision can impact future cases by providing a framework for evaluating the validity of overly restrictive rules that infringe on individual liberties in shared housing communities.
