Can I ask the verbiage in the memo and also how they were distributed (under door, via e-mail, etc.)?

Under the door and posted in the elevator:

"...When the contractors are working outside your windows, ...filters will be applied to the air conditioning units to trap the dust that escapes into the atmosphere. We recommend that A/C units be turned off during the day times when the contractors are working outside your windows, but if necessary MAY be turned on after the installation of filters by the contractor. Please note that they will not operate optimally with the filter in place, will draw more current & may even burn out the motor due to the restricted inflow of air..."

Having managed 12 Local Law 11 Projects I can tell you this:

"Stuff Happens"

Provided there is no threat of liquidated damages on the table, or some other circumstance, the contractor always pays for small things like a new a/c unit, or a new tree, or pressure washing of the sidewalk, whatever the case may be. As you know, an involved Building Manager comes into play by helping select the right contractor, keeping the impacted tenant(s) happy with a free a/c unit, the contractor happy by keeping these issues to a minimum and most importantly, the board happy.
-Gregg

I think that there a few different ways to look at this issue. The first would be for any non-personal information. I would lump disciplinary actions and warning letters, etc. in this category. The Board is effectively the employer of any building staff and a good amount of the time, they are the ones that have initiated the policy for writing employees up if they are not performing their jobs properly. I would think that the Board would have access to any and all job related or performance related memos, warnings, write-ups, etc.

If you have a written request from the Shareholders to view the documents, I'm not a labor attorney (or an attorney at all) but I would think that you should consult with the Coop's attorney to see what their recommendation would be. If there is personal information in those documents, you may be best served to redact any of that information and allow the Shareholders to review them in the Management office as they would any other corporate document. Again, consult your attorney to ensure that this is correct and that you must supply.

Once you get into any material that is personal in nature and extends beyond the borders of the employees specific job function (maybe there are personal details in their reports that are not in the best interests of sharing) I believe that those details should be redacted for all Shareholders, if reviewing.

I'm a frequent contributor the the forum and own a local Management company, Excel Bradshaw (www.ebmg.com) if you would like to reach out. mblevine@ebmg.com or 212-502-7048 x.201.

I would recommend Premiere Properties. They are a small firm, extremely responsive and on top of things.

I would recommend Matthew Adam Properties, Inc., 212-699-8900 Ira M. Meister.

I would recommend Andrews Organization,212 529-5688. Ask to speak with Divya Rashad.

Call Taube Management and ask for Joseph Taube (212)288-0757

I would recommend Premiere Properties. They are a small firm, extremely responsive and on top of things.

YOU can add ALLAREA MANAGEMENT to that list.

Currently on top of the worst managing agents on the list is Rachlin Management

Call Taube Management and ask for Joseph Taube.

One star only because I can't give zero. Totally ineffectual, sponsor controlled company that will lie, cheat and steal from owners to satisfy the whims of their sponsor masters. The staff will hide bills, provide erroneous data, and pretend all is fine until they hit you with an assessment. I can't understand why the Attorney General or other government regulatory group hasn't barred them from real estate.

One star only because I can't give zero. Totally ineffectual, sponsor controlled company that will lie, cheat and steal from owners to satisfy the whims of their sponsor masters. The staff will hide bills, provide erroneous data, and pretend all is fine until they hit you with an assessment. I can't understand why the Attorney General or other government regulatory group hasn't barred them from real estate.

I would recommend Century Management. They've revamped their entire style of business in the past two years and have been getting good reviews on Yelp since that. They have small buildings in their portfolio as well.

Are they in queens

Hi there. I don't think you need to worry not doing a background check on a current resident in this very specific situation will set a precedent against doing due diligence towards new members who have no prior relationship to the building. If this woman has been living in your building for twenty years there's no need to make her undergo a credit check, tax reports, etc. unless your goal is to make the useless former president jump through hoops, which you, as the new board, are entitled to do if you see fit and that's within the rules.

Sue:
Like you, we too believe making an exception in this case could create a precedent for other long-time residents to seek shareholder or co-shareholder status. But we also agree with Minneapolis that a long-term resident shouldn't encounter the same level of scrutiny as would a new applicant.
For this reason we typically suggest co-ops have or adopt a provision that provides an expedited, simplified and reduced fee process for a long-time resident who requests to be added to an existing share, as in the cited case. The process we recommended usually includes a review of the resident's occupancy experience within the cooperative, among other things.
However, an exception should not be a "seat-of-the-pants" event. It should be codified (with a set of standards to be met) as a written addition to the co-op paperwork -- subject to attorney review -- then voted upon favorably by shareholders to better ensure a majority agreement with the change and to help safeguard against forgetfulness or preferential treatment playing a role when the exception is implemented.
The exception should be structured so that it does not become a new member application loophole.

Adding a second party to the stock certificate should be akin to approving a buyer. In the event the original party should pass away, can the second party maintain the maintenance payments? I can't think of any of the units we sold with 2 names on the share certificate where the sale would have occurred without the combined wages. Would you allow a couple to add their 18 year old? Parents move out, and leave the teen behind, legally entitled to live there.... As a minimum, assets and liabilities, life insurance and employment, credit history should be examined.

I guess you would need some of the popular accounting firms (cpa's) that do coop and condo audits to review the financials that they prepare and count up their annual reports to find out. Maybe that's a question for the Cooperator to ask when they mail out next year's COOP Expo invites.
At this time, the estimation is not required by any laws. It is also not free. The board would need to hire an engineering firm to examine all the properties from roof to basement, curb to curb and estimate what repairs are needed short term and estimate the useful life of major items, such as boilers and other HVAC equipment, plumbing, electrical, roof, retaining walls, etc. and project the replacement and repair costs down the road. You would need to do this probably every 5 years or so, to keep up with completed projects, aging and deterioration.
A reserve fund is your money, in excess of the current operating expenses. Few people want to contribute extra for the rainy day. It's one thing to have to pay via assessment for window replacement that would benefit you short term, it's another to sock the money away for that new boiler needed in 15 years, probably after you've moved out.

What happens when the developer and property manager fail to maintain proper records and disclose monthly reports to the homeownerrs? Hiding accounting and auditing information is a violation of constiutional rights. There appears to be a need for an ombudsman saparate from the AG's office that maintains the offering agreements as the REAL PROPERTY LAWS in New York do not currently operate to protect the homeowner.
Hense when 5 leaks appear in the same spot because a doorman , handiman or unlicensed plumber fix's a leak painting over it what happens is MOLD!

What happens when the board and developer fail to hire a proper engineer and hide a video that was done internally to assess buildingwide deficiencies totally over 7 million dollars? Hiding material information from homeowners and others is illigal and should be stopped. A borad and president have a fiduciary responsability to act in "GOOD FAITH" and report the necessary information to its homeowners. In this case witholding matierial infrormation about toxic MOLD is also dangerous and acts a pusblic nuisance to its owners, tenants and any other buildings the develper owns and operates.

Chetrit Sold $1.6M Condo Full of Mold and Mice, Resident Claimshttp://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140324/midtown/chetrit-sold-17m-condo-full-of-mold-mice-resident-claims-lawsuit
""They defrauded me," Schottenstein, who has the autoimmune disease lupus and cannot enter the apartment without wearing a surgical mask, told DNAinfo New York. "This was supposed to be all new plumbing, new electrics, new mechanics. And that was not the case."

Real Estate Mogul Chetrit Takes Heat from Quinn & Tenants Over Hotel Violations
http://jewishvoiceny.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3696:real-estate-mogul-chetrit-takes-heat-from-quinn-a-tenants-over-hotel-violations&catid=116:real-estate&Itemid=299=


A.G. Schneiderman Files $1.3 Million Lawsuit Against Real Estate Developer For Selling Defective Condos
"“Purchasers have a right to full and accurate information about what they are purchasing, and should be able to rely on the representations contained in an offering plan when making a significant investment. We are seeking restitution for the purchasers who were ripped off, in addition to strong penalties for the developer who defrauded them.”

Why hasn't the AG office removed the OFFERING AGREEMENT that is in fraud, failure to place new pipes, plumging, mechanics in one of their buildings? Clearly this is a black and white issue why isn't there action here?

The board should have insurance against theft - check with insurance company - also did you report theft to police?

Inasmuch as theft is a serious matter, are you sure the money was stolen or, as your message title suggests, is it some sort of unintentional "screw-up"? Instead of theft, could it be the result of underestimating future repair needs during the budgetary process?
If you believe it was stolen or otherwise illegally used, discussions with the police and NYS Attorney General would appear to be indicated.
Do you know when the money was first thought to be missing? Your message implies it occurred around 2008. If so, over the last six years the depleted reserve account would be expected to be noted in bank statements, treasurer reports and/or annual budgets. If you haven't done so already you may want to request the opportunity to review such documentation.
Also, when we establish organizations similar to yours we put accounting techniques into place that help guard against one person having full access to funds. You may want to inquire as to the techniques your condo employs.
Hopefully the situation you face can be resolved without a significant maintenance charge increase.

Usually the Proprietary Lease states that an unrelated party can stay in the unit but that is primarily when the Shareholder is in the unit as well. Most Prop Leases also call for an immediate family member to be able to occupy the apartment without the Shareholder there and this will not be considered a sublet.

What you are proposing to do is not within the reasonable language of these clauses and is more along the lines of subletting. If you do leave the apartment and this is not an immediate family member you are no longer taking advantage of the roommate law, but are creating an illegal sublet situation. Although there is no formal sublet policy in place right now, your Prop Lease is probably worded that all sublets must be approved, in writing, by the Board (Lessor), so if you do go through with this, they can probably still take issue with it and bring legal action for the illegal sublet.

Sorry to be the wet blanket.

par 14 prop lease "and" clause= shareholder and family member, not "or" family member

Hi,

I had a similar situation with a building that I took over management of last year - the previous management company wasn't paying water or real estate taxes. I went to the Water Dept. with my hat in my hand and we were able to make out a payment plan to stop the penalties that were accruing and to budget it out on installments so that it would be less of a burden on the Board.

Finding a new company may indeed be the way to go. These are expected expenses that should be escrowed every month and no coop should be left without paying the real estates, insurance and water.

Hi Mark...thanks so much for responding. Is it reasonable to ask the management company to pay for the months that they failed to pay and to recognize? Or, is ultimately up to the board to catch those errors? I feel like they need to pay for this...but my husband says that it is on us, as as a board, because, as you said, we should have set the money aside...and perhaps been following more closely...but we never really get notices of when things come in and when they are paid. What do you think?

I like Mark’s answer. Assuming that the co-op had the funds available to pay the bills, I would say that the management company should pay whatever penalties and interest were ultimately paid to the water board, after negotiations.

It's reasonable to ask them to pay for the outstanding charges - but there may be an issue with you collecting. If they refuse, you could go to another company. If you go to another company, they'll have to be sued to recoup the losses.

If you go to another company and they refuse to pay, it might be worth taking it on the chin, learning the lesson and then moving on. You'll learn, as a Board, to check up on these things in the future and not let them get out of hand such as this. The budget should be made at the beginning of your fiscal year and from that budget the escrowed amounts will take shape. From hereon in, escrow out 1/12 of the major expenses so that you don't have this happen to you again.

If they refuse to pay and you move on, you'll have to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it is worth it to pursue legal and the various costs that this will bring.

Hope that help and reach out to me if you want to speak more privately about the matter.

Mark

This was a good question and answer so I took this and made it into a video response for our YouTube channel.

http://ebmg.com/2014/06/question-answered-our-property-manager-screwed-up-our-water-payment-and-now-were-stuck-with-penalties-and-late-fees-what-can-we-do/

Thanks Mark and others...so, the management company did own up to the error...and agreed to pay for the late fees/interest...but no go on paying for the bill. They did however organize a payment plan with the DEP (unfortunately, we have to dip into our reserve a bit). The company has a comptroller (finally) and actually is doing what some of Mark suggests in the video (thanks for that, too). Lessons learned...though we are still in the market for a new management company. Mark how can I reach you?

Hey, you can email me at mblevine@ebmg.com or directly on the phone at 212-502-7048 x.201.

We had that situation a few years ago, management company did not pay our total withholding taxes for 6 months +, our union dues, our RE taxes, etc - This eventually cost us at least $300,000+; Our former accountant and certain board members said they knew about the withholding taxes but did nothing about it - the Union dues not being paid was a secret and in minutes said it was because of not paying for the guards which was not true. All I know is that the management company had all our money and by contract was obligated to pay our bills, especially withholding taxes,
RE and union dues. I don't know if putting the money into escrow helps, it all depends who has access to that account. When management does not pay the bills and the building has the money where did that money go, but our coop would not sue the management company. I definitely believe that they should have been sued because we not only had to pay what was owed but interest and penalties and with 32BJ that is over 100% - I believe you have to go through the managements insurance company - but they definitely should be sued. Unfortunately there is no agency that will help in this situation; getting NYS to license management companies would be a big plus; now they are only licensed as RE brokers

You need to take a good look at your finances. What started as some failed to pay bills in our Co-op ended as theft on a large scale by our managing agent.

Chetrit Sold $1.6M Condo Full of Mold and Mice, Resident Claimshttp://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140324/midtown/chetrit-sold-17m-condo-full-of-mold-mice-resident-claims-lawsuit
""They defrauded me," Schottenstein, who has the autoimmune disease lupus and cannot enter the apartment without wearing a surgical mask, told DNAinfo New York. "This was supposed to be all new plumbing, new electrics, new mechanics. And that was not the case."

According to Wikipedia, your governing documents determine what constitutes a quorum. It may be based on one vote per unit, on the number of shares, or some other measure represented at a meeting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum#Number_constituting_a_quorum.
You should also check this article from the Cooperator - http://cooperator.com/articles/1189/1/Business-Corporation-Law/Page1.html

The governing documents of your coop should clearly state how to amend the proprietary lease. You'll find that in the by laws.

A quorum is necessary to validate the election of a board. Usually 50% is enough. (that is 50% of the total shares of a coop)

To amend the by laws or the proprietary lease, a super majority is required. In other words, a commending majority of the residents of a building must agree on important changes. (Usually 66% or 75% of the total number of shares)

Thank you.
Great responses. Very helpful.

After additional research, I have come across this baffling conclusion.

The amendment made to the BCL in 1998 only applies to co-op that were formed February 22, 1998 and beyond.
If the BCL which governs all co-ops, deems it reasonable to change two-thirds majority to only a bare majority of all outstanding shares to amend, adopt or repeal by-laws, why is it not law for previously existing co-ops.
If the speed limit is changed today from 40 MPH to 60 MPH it stands to reason that it pertains to all drivers not the ones that received their driver’s license as of current date.

There seems to be a break in the system that needs repair. Any opinions’ on who to contact would be greatly appreciated.

Very important material here! Thanks for sharing. I agree that if the rules for changed for co ops formed after a certain date, that they should also apply to co ops formed earlier. The speed limit example makes sense. I think the NY Attorney General's office needs to take a much closer look at co ops where Sponsors refuse to sell. By neglecting this issue, there are many shareholders being harmed.

I contacted the AG and New York State dep.t of Corporations.
If they responds, I will share the information.