The Pullman Case Setting a Precedent

State legislation and city ordinances can provide a condo, co-op, or HOA board with guidance on how to effectively deal with a disruptive or unruly shareholder—someone whose abusive, harassing, inappropriate or chronically litigious behavior makes them a nightmare neighbor—but legislation is not always clear-cut, and not always applicable to all situations. To address these gaps and eject a truly problematic resident from one's community, boards often must turn to legal decisions made in the courts. Using legal precedent as a basis for getting a rotten apple out of the bunch can work; but it can also be long, costly and arduous. 

The Notorious Mr. Pullman 

In New York State, the most noteworthy case of a “disruptive” cooperative shareholder is arguably that of David Pullman, a successful and wealthy financier who resided at 40 West 67th Street in Manhattan just before the turn of the 21st century. Pullman moved into the nine-story, 38-unit building on Manhattan's Upper West Side in 1998 and soon began making demands that the board change or upgrades amenities and hire a 24-hour doorman, among other things.  Pullman also submitted more than 15 letters of complaint about an upstairs neighbor who he claimed was chronically noisy. 

According to the website, Pullman accused his upstairs neighbors (a retired professor and his wife) of noise violations that included playing the television too loudly late at night and “operating a noisy illegal bookbinding business that required storing toxic chemicals.” The board’s investigation determined that the neighbors not only weren't operating a bookbinding business, but they didn’t even own a television set. Undaunted by the facts, Pullman eventually got into a physical altercation with the professor and distributed flyers throughout the building referring to him as a “psychopath in our midst.”

By 2000, Pullman's fellow shareholders had had enough, and called a vote to terminate his proprietary lease and oust him from the building. The vote was taken, and Pullman was evicted, with the board citing Pullman for “objectionable” conduct under the lease agreement. Pullman in turn filed a lawsuit against the board, and refused to vacate his estimated $900,000 apartment.

Case Law

The wheels of justice often move slowly. In 2003, a divided Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court found in favor of Pullman's neighbors. The court referred to the 1990 decision Levandusky vs. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp. (75 N.Y.2d 530, 2000), which gave legal deference to board members' decisions when made in good faith in the best interest of a building community. The judgment concluded that Levandusky prohibited judicial scrutiny of actions of cooperative boards “taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment in the lawful and legitimate furtherance or corporate purposes.”


Related Articles

421-a Tax Abatement Spared Via Revised Rent Regulation Bill

Developers to Retain Tax Break for Affordable Housing in New Construction – For Now

Is Your View a Property Right?

A Case in Inwood Raises Questions - and Controversy

Small Business Jobs Survival Act Sows Division at City Hall

Council Holds Public Hearing on Much-Debated Bill



  • If true, these clearly are inexcusable behaviors by a community member. However, dealing with run-of-the-mill 'complicated' community members can much more easily be handled by following Mr. Lee's suggestions in his brief entitled "How to Self-Manage your HOA" (free at Very insightful brief! (must read for any board member)
  • It cannot be stressed enough that If there is any suggestion of violation of Human Rights laws, or that the board is acting improperly—based upon animus, retribution, or interest of a board member in purchasing the apartment, for example—the board might not be able to use Pullman.