Faulty Towers: Complaints About Condos on the Rise
Lawsuits against developers and complaints over construction defects at new condos have increased greatly, according to the Times, and are likely to skyrocket over the next couple years. The reasons for the uptick in unhappy owners are obvious—condo fever resulted in plenty of rushed, problem-plagued buildings but at the same time developers were more likely…

Lawsuits against developers and complaints over construction defects at new condos have increased greatly, according to the Times, and are likely to skyrocket over the next couple years. The reasons for the uptick in unhappy owners are obvious—condo fever resulted in plenty of rushed, problem-plagued buildings but at the same time developers were more likely to fix problems in flusher times—and tied to a three-year statute of limitations on suing developers for negligence. The article zeroes in on one Brooklyn building, the Broadway Arms in Williamsburg, above, where owners filed suit against the developer. The condo has had leaky roofs, unstable balconies and a faulty ventilation system. Owners in the building, according to their lawyer, have filed suit because they want to to protect their investments: “They want to make sure they get the value they were promised for their units when they bought it.”
Your New Condo Leaks? Join the Club [NY Times]
Well, outside all of this chatter, there is the very real experience of actually living at the Broadway Arms (I do). I can tell you that the only really spectacular debacle in my whole experience (original buyer) here has been trying to interface with the original contractor (and yes, I’ve served on the board twice). Broadway Driggs/Tahoe are not good people, and have incredibly questionable business practices. For that reason, we covered our butts with hiring a reputable engineer. I can tell you that the firm said that our building did have issues, but we were certainly not unique OR the worst they were seeing. So CHILL people – don’t believe everything you read in the paper. There was a bias there (intended to hype the drama), but the reality of things is that we have a really beautiful home that functions in ALL ways. Every unit here is the original buyer (no one has even considered moving due to any problem with the building!). The referenced “big issues” are currently being worked on and don’t affect our day to day experience here at all. (And yes, the building is pretty fugly on the outside – but our condos are actually really nice inside which is why they literally sold OUT in the space of 1 hour)
benson,
I’m taking a breather from politics debates and I’m gonna just walk away from our spat this morning. I appreciate your post on this thread. It is very hard for people to look at litigation from a cost-benefit perspective when their own property is involved, but they should. It’s also hard to walk it back once you start. Sometimes you need to pull the trigger and sometimes you don’t, but it is always worth trying to minimize the dispute if you can. I don’t have sufficient knowledge to know whether I would agree or not with the ultimate decision to litigate in your case, your approach from the beginning seems more than sound.
I just did some google research. Here’s the trap: Inspection does not cover common areas and common elements like the roof and exterior walls. For that you rely on the engineer’s report. If there is a construction defect, most insurance policies only cover damage that results from the defect, but not the defect itself. So if the roof has a hole, they’ll cover the water damage but not the hole repair. that was my read, at least. You don’t have any control over this insurance policy when you buy the place; you only control your insurance for what’s inside your own walls.
so for some of these repairs I think you’re SOL, like antidope.
I think the Times has a strong bias in support of the real estate market — just follow the money — so I’m inclined to read carefully when the negative articles show up…at least until there are more law firm ads than realtor ads — then I’ll switch.
i think that this article like so many in the RE section takes a bit of something and then runs with it as if it applies to everything. the Time’s does this constantly – so does NY Magazine.
anyone who buys property without an inspection is NUTS!
and, property comes with problems. always has always will. get the sponsor to do more when the board gets set up. get your punch list items taken care of. great if it’s perfect, but expect some issues.
i do know that my new condo is a million times easier and cheaper to deal with then my last property – 100+ years old home. besides the fact that i do zero building maintenance which saves me time that i couldn’t spend on doing it anyway, it’s just way way cheaper. i happen to live on the first 2 floors which is all that i considered (only looked at duplexes), so chose a non-elevator building, and have low low CC’s – (under $250). combine with tax abatement and that tax refund program (last year paid like $275 in taxes for the entire year) and presto! very cheap yearly costs.
that is criminal. I thought part of condo maintenance went for insurance. I guess construction defects are not covered in the policy? Sounds like benson’s “water cannon” was covered, but that was not a construction defect.
really.
insurance co? ha ha ha.
it’s all on your own (collective) shoulders.
oh. I goofed, they didn’t double their money. 45% upside. anyway….
antidope – really? 15% of purchase price for repairs? that’s the amount you sue for I assume. Does your insurance company take that developer-bankruptcy risk or do the condo owners?
Antidope;
I think I know which condo in the area you are talking about (when it comes to 12-17% of original purchase price).
JTB;
I can’t make any statements on the COO matter, as I am no longer on the Board.
if estimate from R was 1% of purchase price, i can see your point.
in my experience, it was a range of 12-17%.