Board of Managers of the Mason Fisk Condominium v. 72 Berry Street, LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 30

Plaintiff is the Residential Board of Managers of the Mason Fisk Condominium alleging ILSA violations and related state-law claims arising from a sponsor-converted 26-unit building.
Sponsor defendants converted a factory into 26 residential units and sold 25 units with an offering plan describing the building as luxurious and well-built.
Alleged defects include fire-safety deficiencies, inferior windows, poor sound insulation, ventilation issues, and improper installation of heat pumps and floors; sponsor allegedly failed to obtain J-51 tax benefits promised to be pursued.
Board retained an architect; architectural report identified multiple design/construction deficiencies and safety concerns.
Sponsor challenges access to units for remediation and contends the Board blocked needed fire-safety work, leading to parallel state court litigation.
Defendants move to dismiss ILSA claim for lack of standing and to stay in favor of state court litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board has standing to sue under ILSA	Board has associational standing to pursue claims for its members.	Board lacks injury-in-fact and cannot represent purchasers; no express assignment of ILSA rights to Board.	Board lacks standing; ILSA claim dismissed for lack of injury-in-fact and jurisdiction.
Whether the Purchasers' rights were assigned to the Board under ILSA	Assignment via contracts permits Board to sue on behalf of purchasers.	Contracts do not transfer ILSA rights; rights to sue under ILSA not assignable here.	No assignment; rights under ILSA not transferred to Board; assignee standing rejected.
Whether Rule 17(a)(3) can cure lack of standing by substitution	Rule 17(a)(3) allows substitution to cure jurisdictional defects.	Rule 17 cannot expand subject-matter jurisdiction; substitution not appropriate here.	Rule 17(a)(3) cannot cure lack of jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed.
Whether the Court should retain or dismiss the state-law claims	State-law claims should remain for related proceedings.	If federal claims are dismissed, state-law claims should be dismissed without prejudice unless efficiency or interests justify retention.	State-law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Ass'n of Oklahoma, 426 U.S. 776 (U.S. 1976) (ILSA disclosure philosophy; protection of purchasers)
Winter v. Hollingsworth Properties, Inc., 777 F.2d 1444 (11th Cir. 1985) (ILSA aims to prevent deceptive land sales)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (associational standing criteria)
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1996) (third prong of Hunt is prudential, not constitutional)
Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs. v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2007) (assignee standing; rights can transfer with assignment)
Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., 554 U.S. 269 (U.S. 2008) (assignees can bring suit; standing through assignment)
Banque Arabe Et Internationale D'Investissement v. Maryland Nat'l Bank, 57 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 1995) (reassignment of rights and scope of contract-based claims)
Fraternity Fund Ltd. v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt., LLC, 479 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (fraud claims and enforceability without explicit assignment)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (standing must be grounded in injury and causation)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2006) (standing requires a concrete injury in fact)
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (U.S. 1997) (standing as central Article III requirement)