We explain HOA law in plain English, but we are not your lawyer and this is not legal advice. Here is why that matters.

A Queens co-op took Local Law 97 to New York’s highest court and lost. The law is now settled.

A Queens co-op took Local Law 97 to New York’s highest court and lost. The law is now settled.
New York · Courts

A Queens co-op took Local Law 97 to New York’s highest court and lost. The law is now settled.

Every New York City board that has hoped Local Law 97 might be struck down should know that the sector ran its own test case, took it all the way to the Court of Appeals, and lost. The plaintiff was itself a large Queens cooperative. The matter is over.

The case is Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v City of New York, and the procedural history runs like this:1

Supreme Court, New York County, Index 154327/2022, October 27, 2023 — the City's motion to dismiss granted in full: no preemption by the state Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, not an unconstitutional tax, no due process violation.

Appellate Division, First Department, May 16, 2024 — reversed in part, reviving the preemption claim. For about a year, the sector had a live theory.

Leave to appeal granted August 1, 2024.

Court of Appeals, May 22, 2025 — reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the CLCPA “did not preempt the field of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.”

Status as of 2026: no further appeals or remands pending. Concluded.

Why this is a co-op story and not a general litigation story

Glen Oaks Village is a large Queens cooperative. This was not a developer's challenge or a trade-association test case brought in the abstract — it was a housing cooperative, with shareholders paying the maintenance, arguing that the state's own climate statute had already occupied the field and left no room for the City's building-emissions caps.

That argument is now foreclosed at the highest level of New York's court system.

What it means for a board's planning

It removes an option that has been quietly shaping decisions. A board weighing whether to commit capital to electrification, or to a decarbonization pathway, or to purchasing offsets, has in practice been weighing it against the possibility that the obligation might go away. It will not go away by litigation.

✓ Your New York State Pass is active — the full analysis below is unlocked

What is actually still available to a board

The obligation is settled; the compliance route is not fixed. Four things remain genuinely open, and they are where a board's effort should go instead of hoping.

The penalty mitigation framework. For the 2024–2029 period, 1 RCNY § 103-14(i) provides routes to a reduced or zero penalty. The disaster route is the cleanest: where an unforeseeable event “precluded compliance during a calendar year where a building was damaged as a result of a disaster, including but not limited to a hurricane, severe flooding, or fire,” that “may result in a penalty of zero dollars” for the year. The good-faith-efforts route requires three conditions plus one of six alternatives.

The zero-penalty resolution of a failure-to-file Notice of Deficiency. DOB's own enforcement material describes resolving it with “zero penalty by submitting an extension request and the annual emissions report,” within sixty days of the Notice Date.

Mediated resolution. DOB describes it as available “when mitigation criteria are not fully met, additional steps or ongoing oversight is needed” — with a warning that “Failure to comply with agreement terms may result in back penalties for previously waived years.

The beneficial electrification credit, which is time-limited. The coefficient in 1 RCNY § 103-14(d)(vii) is negative, and it halves for equipment installed and operating on or after January 1, 2027 — from −0.0013 to −0.00065 tCO2e/kWh. A board's best remaining lever on its own reported emissions expires at the end of this year.

Our New York budget approval page covers the decision, and our reserve studies page covers funding it.

The scale of what is being enforced

DOB's own February 2026 figures: Article 320 covers 30,000 buildings; Article 321, the one-time prescriptive path, covers 11,500; portfolio-wide reduction covers 5,500. Rent-regulated buildings under 35% begin reporting in 2027, roughly 4,000 buildings. Income-restricted buildings begin in 2036, roughly 3,500 buildings, with a first report due in May 2036.

And the enforcement apparatus is new. DOB now has a named Sustainability Enforcement legal unit, and issues penalties for three things: failure to file the annual emissions report, failure to comply with emissions limits, and filing false statements.

Where the sector has gone instead: asking for relief rather than litigating

With the litigation closed, the advocacy has moved to the political route, and the clearest statement of what the industry actually wants came from the Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums in an affordability report this August.2

CNYC's asks: streamline overlapping co-op and condominium regulation; build a centralised compliance portal modelled on the small-business licensing portal; cap Local Law 97 penalties for 2035–2050 at 2034 levels; and bundle the planning, financing and installation of retrofits into single processes.

Derek Jones, CNYC president and a Sherman Terrace board president, on the squeeze — and this is the single best line anyone has produced on what these obligations are doing to New York maintenance charges:

We've been increasing maintenance 7% for the last two years. We should be increasing maintenance 15%, but there would be an uprising if we did that.

Jones again, on the relationship with the City: “Right now the partnership is not happening between the city and co-op and condo owners, so we run into friction all the time.” And on the penalty cap: “There is so much more you can accomplish by redirecting that penalty money.

Chris Halfnight, CEO of Urban Green Council, on the bundling proposal: “If we bundle planning, financing and installation into a single, streamlined process, we can realize economies of scale.

None of this has been adopted. It is a set of proposals, and we are reporting it as that. But the Jones quotation is worth a board's attention for a different reason: it describes a maintenance increase that is being deferred rather than avoided, which is precisely the position that now fails a lender's reserve test under Fannie Mae's Full Review. Our assessment limits page covers the increase question.

The honest summary for a board

Local Law 97 is settled law, tested to New York's highest court by a cooperative and upheld. The 2026 filing deadlines have all passed. Penalties accrue at $0.50 per square foot per month for failure to file and at $268 per tonne over the limit. What remains available is a real mitigation framework, a zero-penalty route out of a failure-to-file notice, and an electrification credit that halves on January 1. What is not available is waiting.

We do not predict the outcome of any individual dispute, and nothing here tells a particular board what its own emissions position is — that depends on its occupancy groups, its consumption and its limit, and it is work for an energy consultant.

Related New York HOA Topics

← All New York HOA Topics

  1. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v City of New York — full procedural history through the Court of Appeals decision of May 22, 2025
  2. Habitat Magazine, August 2026 — the Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums affordability proposals

Stay on top of New York HOA law

Every week: new New York legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.

Check your inbox to complete your sign up.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.