Staten Island man sent to jail over condo HOA dispute

https://www.yahoo.com/news/staten-island-man-sent-rikers-182100514.html

Here's the text of the article:

Something about New York’s legal system doesn’t seem right to Joseph Riccardi, who is jailed because he won’t spend up to $500,000 to meet the demands of his Staten Island condo board.

“There are people committing serious crimes who don’t even have to post bail and are free,” Riccardi told the Daily News. “Yet, I’m on Rikers? It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

“I’m a 57-year-old grandfather, worked 35 years in the finance industry,” an exasperated Riccardi said. “I haven’t got a parking ticket in 20 years. I’ve never so much as sat in a police car.”

Riccardi, a foreign currency trader, began his most recent Rikers Island stretch Oct. 24, and expects to be released Dec. 28.

His trouble is rooted in a years-long legal feud with the board of Ocean View Tower, a condo on the far northern end of Hylan Blvd. in Rosebank, near New York Harbor and across the street from the historic Alice Austen House.

In 2006, Riccardi bought a 14th-floor penthouse in the building for nearly $1 million.

At some point after the building went up in 1989, someone added to the size of the penthouse, the building’s board says. A lawsuit says the addition “exclusively used certain portions of the roof” and is in violation of the city’s building code.

Riccardi said he learned that the 1,500-square-foot rooftop addition was completed by a previous owner, though one architect later told him the space was in fact part of the building’s original construction.

Howard File, a lawyer for Ocean View, doesn’t dispute Riccardi’s claim that he didn’t build on the condo’s roof — but says it doesn’t matter. Under the building’s bylaws, Ocean View says, Riccardi is responsible for fixing the situation.

“He inherited the problem from a previous unit owner,” File said of Riccardi. “And he is responsible under the bylaws for rectifying the building violation.”

Riccardi has already spent more than $425,000 in legal fees and penalties and owes about $100,000 in court penalties. Removing the extension will cost another $300,000 to $500,000 — and Riccardi’s wife, Ann Marie Porto, 60, said they have no money left.

Riccardi hasn’t worked for about 18 months, and a new job is on hold pending the outcome of his legal battle.

“My husband is a broken man,” Porto said. “A broken man.”

The events that put Riccardi on Rikers Island were set in motion in 2016 when the suit by Ocean View Tower accused him of building the addition to his 3,150 square foot property.

At about the same time, the Department of Buildings, acting on a call to 311, inspected the property and issued a violation for the addition, which is described in records as a sports room capped with a skylight roof, and a theater room.

A second violation was issued three months later when the conditions were not corrected.

Both violations were later dismissed by a judge for the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings because the condo was wrongly cited on the violation’s paperwork as having made the extension, records show.

But Ocean View’s lawsuit went to trial, with Riccardi losing in December 2020 and Judge Orlando Marrazzo Jr. ordering him to pay $126,000 in legal fees, common charges and other fees related to the extension. Riccardi was later ordered to pay $150 for each day he failed to fix the property.

The judge also gave Riccardi the opportunity to demolish the extension and return the condo to its original state — or to “legalize” the apartment by modifying it so it adheres to the building code.

File says Riccardi failed to legalize the property, though Riccardi said the plans he presented would have met that requirement.

Riccardi hopes a still-pending appeal is decided in his favor — and is considering filing bankruptcy if he loses.

Meanwhile, in April 2021, Judge Lizette Colon, who took over the case after Marrazzo retired, ordered Riccardi held in contempt for disobeying court orders to remove the rooftop addition.

After a series of delays, Riccardi was jailed for 10 days in January, court papers show. He was released because of health issues. Over the following months, several more court hearings were held, and Riccardi tried without luck to find a contractor willing to do the work.

“No one wants to do it,” said Riccardi’s lawyer, Jorge Salva. “No one wants to get involved. The property is toxic.”

In late October, Riccardi was sent back to Rikers under an order Colon issued that cited his “misconduct and disobedience and neglect and refusal to comply” with a orders to remove the illegal addition.

Though he’s to be released on Dec. 28, he could be returned to jail if he doesn’t move to fix the situation, Salva said.

The condo board “has a vendetta against him,” going back to when it improperly removed him as president of its board, Salva said.

The removal occurred amid a series of feuds between Riccardi and some of his neighbors.

In 2016, Riccardi sued seven building residents, accusing them of falsely alleging he improperly installed equipment in the lobby to “spy” on conversations, misappropriated money, and took kickbacks from people doing business with the building — including $10,000 from the producers of a TV show called “Mob Wives” that filmed at Ocean View.

File said Riccardi was properly voted off the Ocean View board. Riccardi’s neighbors successfully got the lawsuit discontinued in 2021, court papers show.

That case is separate from the effort by Riccardi’s neighbors’ suit to make him take down the extension on the Ocean View roof.

“It’s almost like they’d rather see him in jail than the structure removed,” Salva said. ‘’This is a civil matter. This is not somebody who deliberately committed an offense or refused to obey a subpoena to testify.

“[Riccardi] is basically in debtor’s prison.”

Riccardi, who will be behind bars for both Thanksgiving and Christmas, said in jailhouse phone interview on Friday that people he speaks to have a hard time believing his story.

“They laugh their ass off,” he said. “They can’t believe that this happened.

“They’ve never seen anything like this.”

A previous owner built the addition years before he bought it.

Let's see here a massive addition was built before he owned it. There can be no question that prior Board allowed it and knew about it since it altered the roof line. The current Board elects not to try and grandfather in the addition and instead believes that the owner should now pay $300-$500K to rectify the problem created by the HOA's failure to do their job.

Is this what you would do as CEO Michael?

EEK - it seems to me there's a solution somewhere in the middle here, but it's a matter of finding out where that is. Previous boards not doing their job in this regard isn't surprising - that's one reason why rule enforcement (starting with being fair and CONSISTENT) is so important. I don't know if there are any records anywhere noting who owned the house before this, but even if you could find whoever did this, I'm sure the statute of limitations is long gone. In the end, I fear both sides are going to have to pony up some money to fix this or the lawsuits will continue and Riccardi will spend more time in jail.

It would have been helpful if the owner had a home inspection done - and that inspection might have included contacting the board to see if there were any exterior changes made with or without prior approval. This is important whether you pay $10K or $1 million for the house - never trust the word of the seller without documentation. Saying "Mr. Z was the board president when I did this and he said it was ok" isn't documentation (people can and do lie about saying anything). And it's true that the new owner generally becomes responsible for changes made before he or she showed up, so it's not necessarily about the board being "vindictive". There are city codes involved here and if those violations are pursued, all the homeowners will be responsible for paying the association's expenses in fixing it (or paying the fines AND having to fix it anyway.

Or the then-owner did not seek and obtain permits from the city?

The city code violation is front and center on my mind. I want to know what this violation is and what the city has to say about this violation. Then I'd have a better idea as to whether grandfathering should even be considered.

No, most home inspectors wouldn't think to ask about exterior changes. This is why buyers should ask about that themselves, especially if they're moving into a HOA. Add this to a list of stuff homeowners should ask about (in addition to the documents,recent budget and reserve study) before they buy. Get written documentation of all of this- it may not guarantee there won't be drama, but it might help 8f tge board comes back and trues to enforce something that should have been caught.

Like John, I find it hard to believe the previous homeowner put all this stuff in and no one noticed all the workers or overheard the racket this amount of work had to have made. I'd also be curious to know if any former board members are still around- if so, I wonder if THEY could be held liable. Clearly this is an example of fiduciary duty being tossed - you cannot put the association into this kind of legal and financial jeopardy.

Yes Lori, I am interested in how long after the sale and discovery of an issue can a buyer sue the previous owner and will or can title insurance cover something like this?

From the net: The Staten Island condo building in question is about 15 stories tall, with 54 units and a pool on the side of the building. It was built in 1987. Looks strangely similar to the Surfside building in Florida (built around 1981). There's a two bedroom two bath with about 1200 sq feet currently on the market for about $585,000 (listing price now down 8% or so, if I am reading the listing correctly), unit 3b.

My things are affordable once one gets out of Manhattan and "to the other side of the tracks." The condo fees look strangely low. I wonder what this building's reserve study and structural engineer's report have to say.

I am saying this is New York. I am saying that think New York's laws for condos are way often notably different from Florida, Texas, California and the Carolinas.

This claim by the HOA that the bylaws say ____ about the situation has my attention:
The mere fact that a court early on ruled against Riccardi says a lot to me. Surely the court looked at all the points you raised, the covenants and New York law.

Such is my speculation based on what has been presented.

I know it's a huge deal to send a man to jail. But the guy had an order to do xyz. The guy did not do xyz. I believe courts have a lot of discretion when a court order is defied. I understand it is a big deal to defy a court order.

Such is my opinion at this time.

I am not sure the HOA created it. The owner that did it creates it. Did they indeed have approval to do? Plus approval does not mean the HOA pays for the project. It means your okay at your expense to do the project. If it fails codes then you are responsible for it. The HOA just says you can go for it in good faith.

Think for a minute. This was a 1500sq ft addition inside of a condo tower. How do you think the building materials were brought up without anyone knowing? How do you think the HOA's roof was modified without anyone knowing? How about the noise that was being created while it was under construction?

The HOA failed to enforce their covenants and sat back and buried their heads in the sand while it was all happening. Now some guy who wasn't the owner when it was built is paying the full financial cost of rectifying the problem and the HOA get's to play stupid and take no responsibility for their part in this fiasco. If HOA's are not going to be held accountable for the actions of their Boards then there is no reason for any Board to follow the laws or enforce the covenants when they know they screw the homeowners and get away with it.

N/A for condos. No land involved. Encroachment is the key word. All indications to me are that there is no time limit.

Maybe I didn't read the article clearly enough. But to me there was no indication that the board had not been trying to pursue the original owner for this before this guy bought the unit.

I thought I read that he built the extra space on the rooftop above his unit. So the owner that built it could have done it and no one noticed (except probably the maintenance people) since no one went up on the roof. It's plausible.

But this is all speculation. Unless you read all the complaints, motions and depositions in the case we are never going to know the full story. A news article is never complete.

I became obsessed with the inheritance case our big delinquent homeowner is involved in between him and his three brothers. All of the documents are online.I look for updates a couple of times a week. The summary makes it seem like a simple case of kids fighting over the mom's estate. But the real story that is in the court documents is like a soap opera. I suspect this case is similar - looks like one thing, then throw in the fighting over the board and you get a whole other story.

Any BOD that sees construction going on in a building is stupid and I say liable for not asking about it.

The ORIGINAL owner had to been approved. Were they not? It was the 2nd owner who did not do any of the work. Hence why they are in Jail for not correcting to City Code for what the previous owner did. The HOA didn't make sure it was up to City Code if they did approve it or the codes changed.

The person who bought the house said he bought it that way. Hence the previous owner had to done the work. However, it also says that it may have already existed. So the structure was already there. This is confusing. Was the structure built when the building was built or was it added on by the previous owner? That seems to be in conflict here.

Either way the City should be going after the current owner for correcting the code violation. The HOA is basically the middle man here.

Also how did the HOA allow a homeowner to modify the HOA's roof without ensuring that the modifications were safe and met local code? One would think they wouldn't have without seeing the building permits that proved this. What sticks in my crawl is that the HOA goes unpunished for their stupidity and direct involvement in this mess. I'm fine with the judge coming down on the homeowner for some of his actions but he should have also made an example of the HOA and made them responsible for putting the roof back to it's original condition.

This is legal system gone amok 101.

Can anyone still prove that the area in dispute was built by an owner or was existing space? I know that NY often has roof top access areas. I would like to know if that is the situation.

This captures it, AFAIC.

By my reading, the bar for a court ruling that a covenant is abandoned is quite high. It would take many units doing as Riccardi did, and the board looking the other way for years.

As for waiver of the covenant, Riccardi here would have to have in his hand either (1) written approval from the board at some past point in time, or (2) evidence that the board had approved other owners' additions that were similar to his. Riccardi appears not to have claimed either of these.

This leaves laches, meaning 'does a long enough delay in enforcing the covenant translate to a board not being able to enforce the covenant?' Time and again we see CC&Rs that say, "a failure to enforce covenant such-and-such at time X does not preclude the covenant's lawful enforcement at future time Y." As long as abandonment and waiver are not evident, the courts support the latter CC&R clause.

I think the court's decision here was entirely predictable.

It appears California support JohnT38's point of view for a certain category of covenants. In California, (1) the courts have made clear that HOAs do have a duty to enforce the covenants; and (2) California Code of Civ Proc 336(b) places a statute of limitations on enforcing certain covenants. Counting from the time a California board discovers certain types of covenant violations or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered certain types of covenant violations, a board has five years to enforce the covenant. The interested reader may wish to review this: https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/L/Laches-Waiver-Estoppel-Statute-of-Limitations

Else by my reading, the courts tend to pound on the original covenants being incredibly binding. In so many words, it seems to me that the courts roar, "A deal's a deal. For the courts to extinguish a covenant would undermine people's right to contract. For 100 years the courts have refused to do so unless such-and-such exists. Such-and-such does not exist here. You knew doing X would violate the covenants. You did X anyway. Pay up." I am pretty sure the Restatement (a compilation of the case law nationwide) pounds on this as the nature of "covenants."

I spoke of "original covenants" because amendments have a different standard to meet. I think this is mostly to preclude a tyranny of the majority using the amendments process.

Several years ago I had argued as JohnT38 did. Then I read more case law on the subject of abandonment, waiver and laches. Now I see a consistency in the way courts decide these things.

Of course a condominium covenant may be viewed quite differently from restrictions on land use such as those that exist for single family, stand alone home HOAs. For a condominium owner that was positioned like Riccardi above, would a California court have ruled as the New York court did here?

The city overrides the HOA. The HOA may be more restrictive but must comply to city and state laws.

The city fines the building. That means the HOA is fined. The HOA then may pass the fine to the owner. The HOA has the right to get their money back for the damages they paid in the fine. That can be very high if a big building. A 1500 foot violation may be a large fine.

So the owner seeking approval from the HOA may be barking up the wrong tree. They should be going to the city to correct. The HOA involvement is to make sure it is in their ACC requirements