Exclusive | Posh NYC ‘luxury spa condo’ residents fume as board funnels $500K to wealthy member’s pad for ‘water damage’

People who live in the Upper East Side’s newly‑launched luxury‑spa condo are furious after learning that one of their neighbors received a payment of almost $500,000 from the building’s reserve fund to overhaul her sprawling, multi‑million‑dollar unit, according to the Post.

Court filings say the board routed the roughly $492,000 from the complex’s common‑fund to fix Gina Abandonato Switzer’s 4,300‑square‑foot apartment after she reported water damage.

A text from a fellow owner at 515 East 72nd St. slammed the decision: “Lots of Unit owners are very upset about you and Lou paid to your workers $492,000 and want to see a proof.” He added, “No one would get away with getting $492,000 and not having photos of damage.”

A new lawsuit, filed this week by attorney Carl Garnier, accuses the board of spending half a million dollars on a unit belonging to a board member without any documentation.

The 42‑story tower, packed with a 6,000‑square‑foot spa, a 10,000‑square‑foot gym, an Olympic‑sized pool, and other amenities, has been the scene of controversy for about two years.

The Switzers’ apartment—once highlighted by the Post for its $20,000 grill rig—suffered heavy water damage during façade work in 2023, per a condo financial disclosure attached to the case.

Despite this, the board has failed to provide any receipts, photos, inspection reports, insurance documents, minutes, or proof of a vote tied to the alleged damage or the payout, according to Garnier’s complaint.

The suit argues that the board’s lack of basic governance procedures allowed them to award almost half a million dollars to a member without proper records. It also notes that residents only discovered the payment this spring, after the board admitted—after repeated questioning—that it had spent $492,000 on flooring and cabinetry in the Switzers’ unit.

Gina, who bought the 14th‑floor unit with her husband for $6 million in 2009, dismissed the accusations as “mistruths” in the texts filed with the lawsuit. She pledged to show photos of the “aweful [sic] damage to our home that occurred from the facade work leak testing,” but none were ever delivered, per the filings.

The frustrated neighbor wrote, “It looks very bad for you.”

Neither Gina nor Lou Switzer appear in the lawsuit. When contacted on Thursday, Gina declined to comment.

The board’s lawyers maintain that the payment was fully legal—though perhaps poorly advised—and was “disclosed myriad times to unit owners including audited financials.” They claimed that self‑financing the repair work was preferable to filing an insurance claim, which could have increased premiums, and that the building’s insurance broker advised paying out of pocket to avoid a claim that would “torch” its coverage.

The Switzers’ unit—converted to a condo around 2006‑07 and marketed as the city’s “first luxury spa condominium”—was under water testing when it sustained damage, according to exhibited documents.

A financial statement read that “The Board of Managers approved the transaction regarding the repair.”

Board meeting transcripts from November show that residents remained upset about the payout’s handling. One owner noted that the board had overstepped its authority and there was a conflict of interest because the person who received the money was also on the board. Another called the situation “something really fraudulent.”

Gina said in the same meeting that she and her husband had wanted to file a $3 million insurance claim, but were told repeatedly not to because it would harm the building. One attorney representing the board said that she was “trying to do the building a solid.” “She wanted more. But she went the cheaper route,” the lawyer noted.

Another attorney explained that the payment decision was made by the previous board but argued it was entirely legal, even though residents seemed outraged. “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, noting the board has produced all required documentation. “Easy as it gets,” he said.

Garnier said his lawsuit and filings “speak for themselves.” The building’s management company did not reply to a request for comment.

Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.