N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-m

RPL § 339-m: how condominium common charges are apportioned

Real Property Law § 339-m charges common expenses to condominium unit owners according to their common interests, with defined exceptions for special allocations.

Official text N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-m — New York

§ 339-m. Common profits and expenses. The common profits of the property shall be distributed among, and the common expenses shall be charged to, the unit owners according to their respective common interests, provided however, that expenses of insurance may be charged as provided in section three hundred thirty-nine-bb. Notwithstanding any provision of this article, profits and expenses may be specially allocated and apportioned by the board of managers in a manner different from common profits and expenses, to one or more non-residential units where so authorized by the declaration and bylaws. In the case of units in any building, residential or non-residential, or a combination thereof, profits and expenses may be specially allocated and apportioned based on special or exclusive use or availability or exclusive control of particular units or common areas by particular unit owners, if so authorized by the declaration and bylaws, in a manner different from common profits and expenses. Notwithstanding any provision of this article, common expenses may be charged to the owners of units that are subject to a regulatory agreement with a governmental entity or instrumentality limiting the household income of the residents of such units upon initial occupancy that are less than the common expenses charged to owners of other units where such lesser charges are necessary to ensure that the combined common expenses, mortgage and other housing costs paid by owners of units subject to such regulatory agreements do not exceed thirty percent of the household income limit specified in such regulatory agreements. Where so authorized by the declaration and bylaws, common expenses may be charged to owners of units subject to such regulatory agreements in a manner that (i) is not proportional to the respective common interests of such owners, (ii) limits the amount charged to such owners, or (iii) limits the rate at which the amount charged to such owners may increase. The existence of such special allocation of common expenses and its financial impact upon all units shall be disclosed as a special risk in any offering plan.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

The default rule is one line: common profits are distributed among, and common expenses are charged to, the unit owners according to their respective common interests. Your share of the bill is your percentage - not your usage, not your floor area, not what the board thinks is fair. The percentage itself comes from the declaration and is set under § 339-i.

The rest of the section is the list of permitted departures from that default, and the list is closed. Insurance expenses may be charged as § 339-bb provides. Profits and expenses may be specially allocated and apportioned to one or more non-residential units, in a manner different from common profits and expenses, where the declaration and by-laws authorize it. In any building, residential or non-residential, they may be specially allocated based on special or exclusive use, or availability, or exclusive control of particular units or common areas by particular owners - again, only if the declaration and by-laws authorize it. And units subject to an income-limiting regulatory agreement with a government body may be charged less than others, or on a non-proportional or capped basis, where the declaration and by-laws so provide, with the existence and financial impact of such an allocation disclosed as a special risk in the offering plan.

What runs through every exception is the same condition: authorization in the declaration and by-laws. A board that wants to charge a group of owners differently from their common interests needs to point at those documents, not at a resolution.

When it applies

  • A board bills one line of apartments for a repair that benefited only part of the building.
  • Commercial units in a mixed building are charged separately for expenses.
  • An owner asks why the assessment does not track the common interest percentage.
  • A special assessment is levied for work to a roof or facade over particular units.
  • Owners of income-restricted units are charged at a different rate from other owners.

What this section does not say

  • It does not let a board allocate by benefit at will. Every special allocation in the section requires authorization in the declaration and by-laws.
  • It does not set a budget or limit what the board may spend. It governs how what is spent is divided.
  • It does not distinguish a special assessment from an ordinary charge. Both are common expenses apportioned under this section unless a permitted special allocation applies.
  • It does not allow an owner to refuse to pay because of the way charges were allocated - § 339-x addresses that.
  • It does not decide what is a common expense in the first place; the declaration and by-laws do.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A board assesses only the top-floor units for a roof replacement, on the basis that they are the ones who benefit. Nothing in the by-laws says anything about allocating by benefit.

How the wording applies

The default is one line: common expenses are charged to the unit owners according to their respective common interests. Every permitted departure - special allocation to non-residential units, allocation based on special or exclusive use, availability or exclusive control, reduced charges for income-restricted units - carries the same condition, authorization in the declaration and by-laws. So it turns on those documents, not on a board resolution and not on who benefits.

How the parties settled it

The assessment is reissued across all owners by common interest, and the board takes a special-allocation clause to a proper amendment vote if it wants one for the future.

Illustrative example

In a mixed building the ground-floor commercial units are charged separately for refuse collection and security, and a residential owner objects that everyone should pay by percentage.

How the wording applies

Profits and expenses may be specially allocated and apportioned to one or more non-residential units in a manner different from common profits and expenses - where the declaration and by-laws authorize it. So the question is not whether the split is sensible but whether it is authorized in those documents, which is the same condition every exception in the section carries.

How the parties settled it

The managing agent circulates the clause the allocation rests on, and the commercial owners agree to publish the underlying invoices once a year so the split can be checked.

Illustrative example

An owner unhappy with how much the board spends on landscaping tells it that she is entitled to a reduced charge because she has no garden view and never uses the courtyard.

How the wording applies

The section governs how what is spent is divided, not what may be spent or what counts as a common expense in the first place - the declaration and by-laws decide that. It also draws no distinction between a special assessment and an ordinary charge: both are common expenses apportioned by common interest unless a permitted special allocation applies.

How the parties settled it

The board puts the landscaping contract out to tender and circulates the bids before renewing it, and the charge is paid as apportioned in the meantime.

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

Who pays for the roof and the lift: shared building costs in four legal systems

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-i Condo Board Access Rights | N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-i N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-x RPL § 339-x: you cannot escape common charges by not using the building N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-z First Mortgage Superior: N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-z N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-w Condo Books Open Weekdays: N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-w N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-cc RPL § 339-cc: rebuilding a damaged condominium, and the three-quarters rule

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the New York Consolidated Laws.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-m in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in New York.

← All New York law pages