N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-z

First Mortgage Superior: N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-z

N.Y. Real Property Law § 339-z ranks condo liens for unpaid common charges behind first mortgages and taxes, and limits buyer liability to the board statement.

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

§ 339-z. Lien for common charges; priority; exoneration of grantor and grantee. The board of managers, on behalf of the unit owners, shall have a lien on each unit for the unpaid common charges thereof, together with interest thereon, prior to all other liens except only (i) liens for taxes on the unit in favor of any assessing unit, school district, special district, county or other taxing unit, (ii) all sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record, and (iii) all sums unpaid on a subordinate mortgage of record held by the New York job development authority, the New York state urban development corporation, the division of housing and community renewal, the housing trust fund corporation, the New York city housing development corporation, or in a city having a population of one million or more, the department of housing, preservation and development. Upon the sale or conveyance of a unit, such unpaid common charges shall be paid out of the sale proceeds or by the grantee. Any grantor or grantee of a unit shall be entitled to a statement from the manager or board of managers, setting forth the amount of the unpaid common charges accrued against the unit, and neither such grantor nor grantee shall be liable for, nor shall the unit conveyed be subject to a lien for, any unpaid common charges against such unit accrued prior to such conveyance in excess of the amount therein set forth. Notwithstanding the above, the declaration of an exclusive non-residential condominium may provide that the lien for common charges will be superior to any mortgage liens of record.

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 board of managers, on behalf of the unit owners, has a lien on each unit for its unpaid common charges with interest. The section then ranks it: the lien is prior to all other liens except taxes on the unit, all sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record, and sums unpaid on a subordinate mortgage of record held by one of the named public housing finance bodies. That ordering is why an unpaid balance can persist behind a mortgage rather than being cleared by it, and why the position of a lender matters in these disputes.

The second half is the part that decides arguments between a seller and a buyer. On the sale or conveyance of a unit, unpaid common charges shall be paid out of the sale proceeds or by the grantee. So the debt follows the unit and can be collected from the person who buys it. But either the seller or the buyer is entitled to a statement from the manager or board setting out the amount of unpaid common charges accrued against the unit - and once that statement is given, neither of them is liable, and the unit is not subject to a lien, for any unpaid charges accrued before the conveyance in excess of the amount stated.

That statement is therefore the whole protection, and it protects only to the figure it names. The section ends with a carve-out: the declaration of an exclusive non-residential condominium may provide that the lien for common charges is superior to mortgage liens of record.

When it applies

  • A buyer discovers after closing that the previous owner left months of unpaid common charges.
  • A board asserts a lien and the owner wants to know where it ranks against the mortgage.
  • A seller and buyer argue over who pays arrears that appear at closing.
  • A closing goes ahead without a statement of unpaid common charges from the managing agent.
  • A lender forecloses on a unit that also carries unpaid common charges.

What this section does not say

  • It does not make a buyer liable without limit. A statement obtained from the board caps exposure at the amount it names.
  • It does not put the board ahead of the first mortgage in an ordinary residential condominium - the text says the opposite.
  • It does not set out how the lien is enforced or how long it lasts. That is § 339-aa.
  • It is not a right to stop paying pending a dispute; § 339-x addresses that.
  • It does not cover a co-operative apartment, where unpaid maintenance is a different mechanism entirely.

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

Someone who bought a condominium in the spring is billed by the board for the previous owner's unpaid common charges going back two years.

How the wording applies

Unpaid common charges are payable out of the sale proceeds or by the grantee, so the debt follows the unit. But either seller or buyer is entitled to a statement from the manager or board setting out the amount accrued against the unit, and once that statement is given neither of them is liable, and the unit is not subject to a lien, for anything accrued before the conveyance in excess of the figure stated. So it turns on whether a statement was obtained at closing and what number it carried.

How the parties settled it

The board accepts the figure in the statement it issued, the balance is pursued against the seller under the sale contract, and the buyer's account runs from the closing date.

Illustrative example

A closing goes through quickly and nobody requests a statement of unpaid common charges. Arrears surface a month later.

How the wording applies

That statement is the whole of the protection, and it protects only up to the figure it names. Without one, the section's first rule stands: unpaid common charges are paid out of the sale proceeds or by the grantee. So the absence of the statement is what decides it, rather than anyone's good faith at the table.

How the parties settled it

Buyer and seller split the arrears, with the buyer's share taken from the holdback the seller's attorney is still holding, and the account is brought current in one payment.

Illustrative example

A board asserting a lien for arrears is told by the unit's lender that its first mortgage takes priority, and the other owners want to know where that leaves the money.

How the wording applies

The section ranks the lien expressly: it is prior to all other liens except taxes on the unit, all sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record, and sums unpaid on a subordinate mortgage of record held by one of the named public housing finance bodies. That ordering is why a balance can sit behind a mortgage rather than being cleared by it. The one carve-out is for an exclusive non-residential condominium, whose declaration may put the common charge lien ahead of mortgages.

How the parties settled it

The board agrees a payment plan with the owner instead of pressing the lien, and the lender undertakes to notify the board if it begins any proceeding of its own.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 2003 to 2017.

Board of Managers of Regent's Park Gardens Condo v. Chavez, 136 A.D.3d 953 (2016)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Whether a mortgage lien is superior to a common charges lien under Real Property Law § 339-z.

What it held

The mortgage held by US Bank was superior to the common charges lien held by the plaintiff, so Plotch took the property subject to the mortgage lien.

In the court's words
the mortgage held by US Bank was superior to the common charges lien held by the plaintiff (see Real Property Law § 339-z).

Plotch v. US Bank National Ass'n, 129 A.D.3d 813 (2015)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Whether a consolidated mortgage that includes a second mortgage qualifies as a 'first mortgage of record' under Real Property Law § 339-z, thereby having priority over a subsequently recorded common charges lien.

What it held

The court held that the consolidated mortgage, recorded as a single lien, constitutes a first mortgage of record and thus has priority over the common charges lien, because the statute must be narrowly construed and the second mortgage falls within the ambit of all sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record.

In the court's words
Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of US Bank’s motion which was for summary judgment declaring its consolidated mortgage in the amount of $166,500 recorded on September 8, 2006, to be the first mortgage lien against the subject property.

Plotch v. Citibank, N.A., 120 A.D.3d 1210 (2014)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Whether a common charges lien has priority over a second mortgage that was consolidated with a first mortgage under Real Property Law § 339-z.

What it held

The common charges lien does not have priority over the consolidation agreement, which is considered the first mortgage of record, because the second mortgage comes within the statutory priority for all sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record.

In the court's words
Thus, the common charges lien does not have priority over the consolidation agreement.

AMT CADC Venture, LLC v. 455 CPW, L.L.C., 45 Misc.3d 176 (2013)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether plaintiff's consolidated mortgage is a 'first mortgage of record' entitled to priority over the Board of Managers' lien for unpaid common charges under Real Property Law § 339-z.

What it held

The court held that plaintiff's mortgage is a first mortgage of record with priority over the Board's lien for common charges, and that foreclosure of the mortgage extinguishes the Board's lien except for surplus proceeds.

In the court's words
Therefore summary judgment of foreclosure on plaintiffs superior mortgage lien extinguishes the Board of Managers’ lien for common charges, except insofar as surplus proceeds remain.

Board of Directors of Hunt Club at Coram Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Hebb, 22 Misc. 3d 584 (2008)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Whether a notice of lien for unpaid common charges filed pursuant to Real Property Law § 339-aa that is not verified as required by the statute gives rise to an enforceable lien that can be foreclosed upon.

What it held

A notice of lien filed pursuant to Real Property Law § 339-aa that is not verified does not give rise to an effective lien subject to enforcement in a foreclosure action when an objection to the unverified nature is properly asserted, but the missing verification may be corrected by motion for leave to file an amended notice of lien.

In the court's words
the court finds that a notice of lien filed pursuant to Real Property Law § 339-aa that is not verified as required by said statute does not give rise to an effective lien that is subject to enforcement in a foreclosure action where, as here, an objection to the unverified nature of said notice of lien has been properly asserted.

Barry v. Board of Managers, 18 Misc. 3d 559 (2007)

trial courts

What the court had to decide

Does the lien for common charges under RPP § 339-z create a personal debt or a property lien?

What it held

The court held that the obligation for common charges is a lien against the unit, not a personal debt, and therefore not subject to the FDCPA.

In the court's words
The first is that the obligation for common charges is a lien against the unit and not an individual obligation.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

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-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

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-z 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