Justice Dianne Renwick
Plaintiff condominium is a "cond-op." Its residential portion (consisting of co-op apartments) is legally both a residential cooperative and a condominium. Seligson owns its commercial space, a condominium. The commercial and residential units were allocated 10 and 90 percent interests in common elements. The bylaws provide for a three-person board, with two members designated by the co-op and one by commercial unit owner. Seligson’s dispute over common charges arrears, decided in 2009 by a "board" comprising only co-op representatives, was put to a Dec. 1, 2009, three person board. Following appeals and remand, a referee found that plaintiffs showed, by preponderant evidence, that Seligson owed $299,911 in common expenses from 1994 through 2009. After failing to pay following confirmation, a $342,592 judgment was entered against Seligson. First Department affirmed, rejectingunder the law of the case doctrineSeligson’s claim that the board’s action of billing her for purported 1994-2009 common charges was not authorized by the declaration or bylaws. Further, except for interest chargeable for late payment of common charges, First Department found the referee’s findings supported by the record.
