Well-heeled residents of New York’s “first luxury spa condominium” are fuming after finding out one of their neighbors got a nearly $500,000 payment from the building to revamp her massive, multi-million dollar apartment, The Post has learned.
The condo board funneled the roughly half-million dollars from the Upper East Side building’s common fund to repair Gina Abandonato Switzer’s 4,300-square-foot apartment after she reported it had suffered water damage, court documents state.
“Lots of Unit owners are very upset about you and Lou paid to your workers $492,000 and want to see a proof [sic],” one neighbor texted Switzer, who is married to Lou Switzer, CEO of interior architecture firm the Switzer Group.
“No one would get away with getting $492,000 and not having photos of damage,” the fellow apartment owner at 515 East 72nd St. seethed.
The pricey renovations are now the subject of a lawsuit, filed by another building resident, attorney Carl Garnier, in Manhattan Supreme Court this week.
The drama at the opulent, amenity-rich 42-story tower — which boasts a 6,000-square-foot spa, a 10,000-square-foot gym, an olympic-sized swimming pool and more — began about two years ago.
The apartment owned by the Switzers — who once appeared in The Post showing off her “tricked out” $20,000 grill setup — suffered extensive water damage during facade work in 2023, according to a condo financial disclosure form filed in the case.
But the board hasn’t been able to cough up “any invoices, photographs, inspection reports, insurance records, minutes, or evidence of a vote” in connection to the alleged damage or the payout, Garnier wrote in the suit.
The suit blames a “breakdown of basic condominium governance” for the board opting to give “nearly half a million dollars to one of its own members without documentation.”
It adds that residents only learned about the payment this spring — when the condo board allegedly admitted “only after repeated questioning” that it had spent $492,000 to replace flooring and cabinetry in the Switzers’ unit.
Gina, who purchased the 14th floor unit with her hubby for $6 million in 2009, called the allegations “mistruths” in the texts filed as part of the lawsuit.
She promised to show the “aweful [sic] damage to our home that occurred from the facade work leak testing” — but the photos were never delivered, according to the filings.
“It looks very bad for you,” the frustrated neighbor wrote.
Neither Gina nor Lou Switzer are named in the lawsuit. When reached by phone on Thursday, Gina declined to immediately comment.
But the board’s attorneys argued the payment was totally legal — though perhaps misadvised — and was “disclosed myriad times to unit owners including audited financials.”
Self-funding the repair work “was preferable to insurance” to avoid taking a hit on insurance premiums, the board’s lawyers claimed.
The Switzers’ pad in the swanky building — which was converted to a condo around 2006-07 and bills itself as the city’s “first luxury spa condominium” — was undergoing facade water testing when it “incurred water and mold damage,” according to filed exhibits.
The building’s insurance broker told the board to pay for the work directly, since a claim would torch its premiums.
“The Board of Managers approved the transaction regarding the repair,” a financial statement reads.
Transcripts from an apparent November board meeting showed that residents still felt unsatisfied about how the payout was issued.
“It seems to me that they totally overstepped their bounds and it was a conflict of interest that the person that got paid was also on the board,” one condo owner said, according to the transcript filed in court.
“That is, to me, something really fraudulent here,” said another.
In that same meeting, Gina Switzer said she and her husband had wanted to make a $3 million insurance claim — but “we were asked repeatedly not to because it would be detrimental to the building.”
One attorney representing the board said that Switzer “tried to do the building a solid.”
“She wanted more. But she went the cheaper route,” the lawyer said.
Another attorney said the payment decision was made by the previous board, but argued it was perfectly legal — despite residents’ apparent ire.
“The current board disagrees with the decision the prior board made to pay for these repairs out of pocket,” attorney Adam Leitman Bailey told The Post. “But that decision is protected by the business judgment rule.”
Bailey claimed the suit will be dismissed immediately, claiming the board has produced all records as required by law.
“Easy as it gets,” he said.
When reached for comment, Garnier said that his lawsuit and filings “speak for themselves.”
The building’s management company did not respond to a request for comment.
