Hi question about carpet cleaning but more how to handle a hostile board chairman. The co-op carpet hasn’t been cleaned in a year and a half after the board promising 2 years ago that it would be cleaned yearly. Several of my fellow shareholders have contacted the board to ask when they were planning on cleaning the carpet, we have our own large industrial steam cleaner. They never heard back so I sent my own email. The board chairman got back to me telling me that they don’t want want to clean it because it’s 15 years old and disintegrating and cleaning it will make it worse. It’s not and in great shape. He also said they might replace it at some point next year. This board is crazy about spending money on things they don’t need to. I’ve owned 2 multi family homes and had industrial carpeting like this in the common areas for over 40 so I know this isn’t true I even Googled it so I know he’s wrong. In his last email to me he told me if I didn’t like the decision that there are plenty of other apartment buildings out there I should think about moving to. We’ve all emailed him at the board email address but he responds on his personal email so that none of the other board members can see what he’s saying.
Any suggestions as to what to do?

I reside in a large 3 bedroom coop apt on the lower level. My apt; is in a corner down a long hallway away from any other apts. Entrance to hallway also incudes an outside door leading to the driveway is aways dirty; As owning homes & always had doormats I placed one in front of my doorway to prevent bring dirt onto my wooden floors. I did this because the dirt out along the carpet has actually led to front prints on my inside apt floors. The carpet out in the hallway is always dusty & dirty and doesn't appear to be vacuumed as what is done with upper hallways;
Being refused a doormat is on heard off for me; I don't want to be bringing dirt into my apt;

If a shareholder is a Holder of Unsold Shares with Sponsor Rights but is not the Sponsor:
1. Can the Shareholder sell the apartment to a Purchaser who intends to live in the apartment without Board approval?
2. Can the Shareholder with Sponsor Rights transfer the Sponsor Rights to a Prospective Purchaser who does not intend to
live in the apartment but intends to lease the apartment as an investment unit?

Please advise.

Hello!

I own an apartment in one of the coop buildings in Brooklyn and I am trying to sell my apartment for a few months already. As a result of the cooperative property management company failing to provide the bank with the required documentation, my buyers are not being approved for mortgages by the second bank. The management company has not provided the financials or tax returns for the year 2022-2023.

Despite asking for these for months already, they continue to state that their CPA is still working on finalizing them.

How normal is this? We are not only forced to continue paying maintenance and other fees for a unit we are no longer occupying, but also risk losing the sale as a result.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide me with some advice.

HDFC coop here - one of the apartments has been vacant since the shareholder died more than five years ago. Nobody lives there, so nobody is keeping an eye on things to make sure there are no problems (leaks from the roof, etc.) that if not addressed immediately could become even bigger problems for the apartment itself, but also for the apartments adjacent and below to it. Needless to say, the apartment is also in dire need of a renovation. The heirs have supposedly been paying the maintenance all these years and are refusing to put it up for sale, because they are convinced that by holding onto to it longer, they'll make a ton of money. After many years and an ongoing legal dispute, the board has been refusing to give the rest of the shareholders any details about this contention (what I described I found out from someone with knowledge of it). I would like to know if it's legal for a person (or multiple people, in this case) to own an apt in an HDFC coop and not live in it. Shouldn't the law allow the coop to force the heirs to sell the apartment after all these years? And if they refuse to do so, shouldn't the coop be allowed to repossess it? Any advice would be appreciated.

I’m on the board of a small condominium. The tenant in one apartment installed a new lock two years ago resulting in the exposure of an unattractive, unpainted section of the apartment door. The tenant had initially agreed to take care of re-painting the door but hasn’t done so. Our by-laws stipulate that doors are part of the common area and owners are responsible for repairing any damage to their portion of the common area.

I’d now like to contact the owner (whom I realize I should have initially contacted) and mandate that they pay for re-painting the door. One board member disagrees that the owner should have to take any action. Among other reasons, this member believes that requiring the owner to re-paint the door would result in some level of tension, or quarreling, among neighbors. Having owned a couple of properties before this one I am used to disagreements among owners and do not see this as a reason to (further) delay a needed repair.

My fellow board member is also concerned that because the board had agreed to institute painting throughout the building, finances permitting, in about two years time, we should just wait. But I’d rather that the owner address the issue now. We are a small building and in the past have delayed painting and upgrades to the building given other, more urgently needed repairs (furnace, roof, etc.).

In reviewing owners' emails I came across this note from 2017: “Good thing we're re-doing the interiors soon.” We have never re-done the interior.

I’d be interested in any comments or suggestions you may have. Thanks.

MY QUESTION REVOLVES AROUND LITIGATION WHERE COOP CORP IS BEING SUED ,,,, DOES THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY OR BOARD HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CLAIM AGAINST THE COOP ONCE FILED IN COURT, AND GIVE THEM THE POSSIBLE RAMIFICATIONS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS? AND IF THEY DO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY, DOES THIS ALSO GO TO ANY PROSPECTIVE BUYERS BEING INFORMED OF THE ISSUES (AND IF INFORMED, GIVING AT LEAST AN OPINION BY THE COOPS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE COOP IS PROTECTED THRU INSURANCE, OR POSSIBLE FINANCIAL ISSUES THAT COULD OCCUR?) I BELIEVE THEY DO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE NYS ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO HAS OVERSIGHT, MIGHT ALSO STATE IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED.......... BUT I AM LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE HERE.... THANK YOU

Our board is debating a major construction project. There is disagreement about how quickly to proceed. At our last meeting, the vote to begin spending on the project passed by a slim margin, 4-3. The dissenting board members requested that the description of the discussion in the meeting minutes include their counter-arguments. I am the secretary and I agree, but wanted to ask the community for their thoughts. thanks KAK

I am the Board President of my coop. Can I do a walk-through with a potential contractor and request a bid to present to the board?

Board president here. I want to know how other buildings handle shareholders who get to the top of the garage waiting list but don’t have a vehicle.

It has reportedly been the (unwritten) policy of this building to require such shareholders to a) get a car, b) take their names off the list, or c) go back to the bottom of the list. However, recently a shareholder (and board member) was “shocked” to learn this and maintains that “most buildings” just allow such shareholders to remain at the top of the list. They would then be the first people offered every successive open spot until such time as they would finally like to buy a car. This person just so happens to have just gotten to the top of the list and doesn't have a vehicle, so I'm looking for some disinterested corroboration of this claim.

Anyone have experience with this matter?

I can’t think of a reason that allowing people to just remain at the top of the list forever would affect the fairness of the process (at least for those who join the list now - those who've already given up a space or declined to put their names on the list because of past policy might take issue with a change).

However, I can also see that it could become an administrative nightmare. And for some reason the idea makes me uncomfortable. it seems wrong somehow - but, like I said, I can't think of a good reason why.

Any thoughts or policy examples would be greatly appreciated.