N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-x

RPL § 339-x: you cannot escape common charges by not using the building

Real Property Law § 339-x: no condominium unit owner may avoid common charges by waiving use of the common elements or abandoning the unit.

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

§ 339-x. Waiver of use of common elements; abandonment of unit; conveyance to board of managers. No unit owner may exempt himself from liability for his common charges by waiver of the use or enjoyment of any of the common elements or by abandonment of his unit. Subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the by-laws, any unit owner may, by conveying his unit and his common interest to the board of managers on behalf of all other unit owners, exempt himself from common charges thereafter accruing.

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 rule is stated as a prohibition on two arguments. No unit owner may exempt himself from liability for his common charges by waiver of the use or enjoyment of any of the common elements, or by abandonment of his unit. So "I never use the gym, the roof deck or the lift" is not an answer, and neither is "I moved out and left the keys". Common charges follow ownership, not use and not occupation.

The reason the section exists is structural. A condominium's expenses are fixed regardless of who turns up; if any owner could opt out by declining to use something, the shortfall would fall on the rest. That logic also explains why the section is read as ruling out the set-off argument - withholding charges because the board has failed at something is a form of exempting oneself from liability, and the owner's complaint about the board is a separate matter to be pursued separately.

The second sentence gives the one exit the statute allows. Subject to such terms and conditions as the by-laws may specify, an owner may exempt himself from common charges accruing thereafter by conveying the unit and the common interest to the board of managers on behalf of all the other unit owners. That is a real conveyance, on the by-laws' terms, and it stops charges only from then on - it does not clear arrears.

When it applies

  • An owner stops paying common charges because the board will not repair the elevator.
  • An owner who has moved abroad and left the unit empty is billed for common charges.
  • A unit is vacant and unlettable and the owner asks to be relieved of the monthly charge.
  • An owner who never uses the amenities objects to paying for their upkeep.
  • An owner offers the unit back to the board to stop the charges accruing.

What this section does not say

  • It does not decide whether the board is right about anything. An owner's complaint about the board's conduct survives; it just does not license non-payment.
  • It does not clear arrears on conveyance to the board. The exemption is from charges "thereafter accruing".
  • It does not oblige the board to accept a conveyance except as the by-laws provide.
  • It does not create the lien or the enforcement route. Those are §§ 339-z and 339-aa.
  • It says nothing about whether a particular charge was properly allocated - that is § 339-m.

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

The elevator in a building has been out of service for months. An owner stops paying common charges in protest and the board threatens a lien.

How the wording applies

No unit owner may exempt himself from liability for common charges by waiver of the use or enjoyment of the common elements or by abandonment of his unit, and the same logic rules out withholding as a set-off, since non-payment is a way of exempting oneself. The complaint about the board survives; it simply does not license non-payment. So it turns on keeping the two questions apart, not on whether the elevator grievance is fair.

How the parties settled it

The arrears are cleared over three months and the board commits to a written repair timetable, with a payment into the reserve fund if it slips.

Illustrative example

An owner who has moved abroad leaves a unit empty and unlettable, and asks to be relieved of the monthly charge until it can be sold.

How the wording applies

Abandonment of the unit is expressly not an exemption, and neither is never using the common elements: charges follow ownership rather than use or occupation, because the building's expenses are fixed regardless of who turns up. The one exit the statute gives is a real conveyance of the unit and common interest to the board on behalf of the other owners, on the by-laws' terms, and it stops charges only from then on.

How the parties settled it

The board accepts payment quarterly rather than monthly while the unit is marketed, and the owner authorizes the agent to give access for viewings.

Illustrative example

An owner deep in arrears offers the unit back to the board, expecting that handing it over will wipe out what is already owed as well as stopping future charges.

How the wording applies

The second sentence gives that exit on its own terms: subject to such terms and conditions as the by-laws may specify, an owner may exempt himself from charges thereafter accruing by conveying the unit and common interest to the board on behalf of all the other owners. It stops future charges and does not clear arrears, and the board is not obliged to accept except as the by-laws provide.

How the parties settled it

The board accepts the conveyance under the by-laws and the owner settles the arrears from another source, with both signing a release once the transfer is recorded.

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-z First Mortgage Superior: N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-z N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-m RPL § 339-m: how condominium common charges are apportioned N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-w Condo Books Open Weekdays: N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-w N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-h Exclusive Unit Ownership: N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-h 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-x 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