When Is a New York HOA Rule Unenforceable?

Not every rule a New York board announces is automatically enforceable. Because New York lacks a dedicated HOA statute, the analysis runs through the governing documents and a single dominant doctrine — the business judgment rule. For your specific situation, a licensed New York attorney is the right resource. This is general information, not legal advice.

For the general framework that applies across states (where rule power comes from, adoption, reasonableness, and federal overrides), see When Is an HOA Rule Unenforceable?.

Rules flow from the governing documents

A New York association's authority comes from its declaration and bylaws (and, for a co-op, the proprietary lease). A rule has to fit within the powers those documents grant. A board cannot use a rule to reach a result the declaration does not authorize, and a rule that conflicts with the declaration generally gives way to it. The recorded documents are the source of the power — and its outer limit.

Will a New York court second-guess an HOA board's rules?

Generally, no. Under the business judgment rule from Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 (1990), courts will not second-guess a board that acted within the scope of its authority, in good faith, and in furtherance of the community's legitimate interests. A rule or its enforcement is open to challenge when the board steps outside those limits.

New York reviews board action under the business judgment rule from Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 (1990). The doctrine's limits are exactly where rules become vulnerable: a rule or its enforcement is open to challenge when the board:

• Exceeded its authority — acted beyond what the declaration, bylaws, or statute allow
• Acted in bad faith — for reasons unrelated to the community's legitimate interests
• Discriminated or enforced selectively — applied the rule to one owner but not to identically situated neighbors

Selective enforcement

Selective enforcement deserves its own emphasis because it pierces the business judgment rule's protection. A documented pattern of overlooking the same conduct by others undercuts enforcement against a particular owner and can show the board did not act evenhandedly. The association's own records and minutes are usually where that pattern surfaces.

What can't an HOA ban in New York?

Solar power systems, among others. N.Y. Real Property Law § 342 makes an association rule that "effectively prohibits the installation or use of a solar power system" void and bars rules that "impose unreasonable limitations" on rooftop systems rated at not more than 25 kilowatts, though an association may still regulate systems on property it owns in common.

Some rules fail no matter how they were adopted, because higher law preempts them:

• Fair housing — the federal Fair Housing Act and the New York State Human Rights Law bar discrimination and require reasonable accommodations, including for assistance animals
• Discriminatory covenants — Real Property Law § 327-a, in effect since June 3, 2026 (Chapter 578 of the Laws of 2025, as amended by Chapter 43 of the Laws of 2026), requires the board of managers of a condominium, the board of directors of a cooperative apartment corporation, or a homeowners association (where the property is subject to its rules and regulations) to "delete or amend any unlawful restrictions that exist in a recorded document" within one year of the section's effective date, and "[s]uch deletions or amendments shall not be subject to the approval of property owners." The section defines unlawful restrictions as covenants, conditions, or restrictions "that unlawfully discriminate on the basis of a protected class in violation of state or federal law."
• Display rights — the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act and the FCC's OTARD rule limit bans on the U.S. flag and on certain antennas and satellite dishes
• Solar — New York's Solar Rights Act, Real Property Law § 342 (added in 2021), reaches homeowners' associations directly. It provides that an association rule or restriction "which effectively prohibits the installation or use of a solar power system is unenforceable and shall be void as contrary to public policy," and bars rules that "impose unreasonable limitations" on a rooftop system rated at not more than 25 kilowatts (the statute lets an association still regulate systems on property it owns in common)
• Servicemembers — the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protects owners on active duty

A rule that collides with any of these is not saved by being in the declaration.

For condominiums specifically, Real Property Law § 339-ll (added in 2019) adds a parallel limit on electric-vehicle charging: a bylaw that "effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station" within a unit owner's unit or designated parking space "shall be void and unenforceable," though the condominium may impose reasonable restrictions. The provision sits in the Condominium Act (Article 9-B); homeowners' associations that are not condominiums fall back on their own documents and the business judgment rule.

What people generally do

When a New York rule is in question, the points that commonly matter are:

• Whether the rule traces back to a specific declaration, bylaw, or lease provision that authorizes it.
• Whether the board acted within its authority, in good faith, and evenhandedly.
• Evidence of how the rule has been enforced against others.
• The issue can be raised in writing and at a meeting.
• A licensed New York attorney is the resource before a disputed fine becomes a lien or money judgment.

Sources

• Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530 (1990)
• N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 621 — Books and records; right of inspection
• N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-w — Records (Condominium Act)
• N.Y. Real Property Law § 342 — Solar Rights Act; HOA covenants prohibited
• N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-ll — Electric vehicle charging station installation (Condominium Act)
• N.Y. Real Property Law § 327-a — Modification of restrictive covenants