Thanks. This is very important that people show up for this event. Our building reached out the the Public Advocates office regarding our HPD issues and reach a deadend with turnover of staff and just incompetent staff who had no idea how to handle this type of issues. Scary enough is that two of the staff ppl we reached out to now are according to the NY Times in the "inner circle of Deblasio" if there past failure to address these issues in the public advocates office is any indication of how the city will be run, I suggest all HPD home owners go to this event. Also, the corruption is so disgusting since our building is built by Donald Capoccia & BFC Construction Andrew Cuomo's largest donors.

A sublet is a sublet. Unless the relative is a non-resident owner of the unit the surcharge applies.

The whole concept of coops was promoted with the idea that people who are owners will take better care of their building and watch out for problems, plus be involved in making sure that the board is conducting business properly, and they are also all checking the finances, not leave it up to one person, who could be embezzling for years and also be judgement free.

None of the non shareholders owners can not vote, nor can they speak at the annual meetings. The co-op i am in also has this problem, =it is approx 50% owner occupied now. This also gives the president an advantage ,since if he is letting these apartment violate par 14 the "and" clause, and also not charging them sublease fees, guess who the proxy votes will be for. The person that is accommodating the non owners while the value of the property decreases. An apartment that is 90% owner occupied will get a higher price and be easier to sell then a bldg with 50% owner occupied.
However our co-op president just lies, he says that apartment that have been vacant since 1983 are owner-occupied, as are the sublets by childrem of the owner, with the owner never moved into the apartment , not for one day. he calls those owmer occupied too. The last twp nuyer were told the building was 90 to 95% owner occupied, it has never been near 90%. Not one of these relatives of the owners gets involved.becaise legaslly they really cant, they are not the shareholder.
It a disasoer that need to ne addressed.
Ithos and other items that are against the BCL , which the AG refuses to act upon, including shareholder list and ability to see the financials if your proprietary lease states so.
send a bullet point list of all the problems the shareholders are facing. Violations of the BCL, self dealing, fiduciary irresponsible by allowing sublet which lower the value of the building. Send them to the Morlend committee, the DA on long island that is one of the heads in the investigation, and wnyc web page has a page of information on it . Start making it known every way possible. The AG signed off and approved the conversions, it is their job to enforce the cut and dry BCL's, like the shareholder and financials, .but they tell us to hire a lawyer to do their work
Commenst@morelend.ny.gov , is a way to bring all these cash cow building while the shareholder gets robed. i wrote them mpnths ago and they called 3 days before the end of the hearings, on Nov 27 th,I take that as a CYA but we dont want to hear anything, So i will let the DA involved know and all the newspaers, and all those co-op owners that think they have protection by the AG.

i made a typo up there, i am having a hard time spelling this word. but at least i caught it.
WNYC has the DA on Long Island that is hot on Albany
comments@morlend.ny.gov

Check the "Use of Premises" paragraph in your proprietary lease, which is typically paragraph 14. If it says something like "... a private dwelling of the Lessee AND Lessee's spouse, their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters ..." then the shareholder (Lessee) must be occupying the apartment along with the brother, or it's a sublet. If the word "and" is missing, however, then anyone on the list can live in the apartment without the shareholder being present, and it's *not* a sublet. That one little word makes all the difference. Consult your attorney for confirmation and details.

I agree - check the proprietary lease and if it reads XX AND then the Owner must reside with others - However if you read NYC Dept of Finance & NYS rules for the elegibility for the coop/condo abatements - both regular and special -Enhanced Star, Senior Housing, etc - then NYC and NYS s -say that only OWNER OCCUPIED APARTMENTS ARE ELEGIBLE- Unfortunately in my coop there are many many sublets - none legal - I have tried to have proper documents and fees required for these but definitely unsuccessful - In addition I have warned that eventually NYS, NYS etc will come down on us for these abatements they have been issuing for persons that are not eligible and I as a shareholder a) did not get these abatements and b) definitely do not want to pay because others received them illegally

is their any city.county state list of properties
residents in coops receiving abatement?
Does the cooperation receive any abatement?
I am in Westchester, so NYC abatement would not apply.
Also how many coop hold the yearly abatement and partition out out every month against the maintenance?
I know some coops give the star directly to the shareholder in a lump sum, this one keeps the money and takes a monthly star amount off the maintenance The question of this came up when a person selling , the buyers wanted the sellers STAR that the seller had earned. The sellers attorney who also had a coop with the same managing company said in his building the STAR was given the the owners in a lump sum, so this would not be an issue in his building.
I am sure there are many owners that are receiving star abatements that have never lived in this coop. i have been bringing up these illegal subleases per ch 14 of prop lease for over 6 years.
This policy by the board and managing agent has destroyed the cooperative building that i bought into at the conversion in 1983.
A apartment across the hall. that was an owner occupied apartment, was sold to someone that has subleased it to new people every 3 years, for about 20 years. There are many legal sublets that have ben subleased for 15 to 20 years, while the rule was 2 years. Some have been subleased since conversion, and they are not unsold shares.
Can i inform the managing company that i want the STAR in a lump sum? Where would i report fraud of the STAR plan too?

The STAR tax credit applies to owners residing in a property. The coop does not receive any STAR money for itself. I'm not aware of the availability of the STAR info to other than to the building owner (coop corporation) or management co. NYC is in the process of verifying the eligibility of the STAR credits this month, people who are not verified will be dropped. Most building seem to keep the money, and credit the maintenance accounts over 1 or more months. It must be credited by the end of June each year, I believe. As far as someone selling, I don't know how much it can amount to. It's only a few hundred dollars per unit, you're buying/selling something for $100-300 thousand and you're going to argue over $400.00? STAR is based on past ownership, so why should the buyer be entitled? The seller could ask for a credit if the credit has not been applied yet, but it's still not a lot of money.

the prices in out building have dropped approx 40% if the last private sale by a board member quoted price is to be believed, I have find out the board pres and probably more of the board has been openly blaming me for the price drop, because i have been bringing up ther owner occupied issues they are telling buyers 90% or more and it is under 50%. I also have been vocal on all the boards failures to abide by the BCL, ,the biggest, their financials and refusing to let them be reviewed as allowed in proprietary lease. When you have a micro manged coo-op with refusal of transparancy, The Board and managing company telling the owners at a annual meeting around 1998 that NYS had outlawed cumulative voting, which we had been doing since conversion, they did this once they got enough ringers on there m and even lowered the board to 5 when they saw they may get some honest people on the board.
There is so much fraud and corruption, Much can be proven , but their is no one to turn to AG, dont care DA dont care this is mortg=ager and insurance fraud, I tried to get the co-op issue into the morlend committee, since it is real estate lobbying groups that are stopping an ombudsman, and the AG refuses to enforce the BCL.
I know there must be a database of star recipients.I need to find out who to bring up the fraud info too, I already tossed it to the morlend committee.I want to get the board jammed for fraud , since i have been speaking out against their practices at annual meetings, and they are recorded. See if i can get them jammed for fraud, since they want to play the jailhouse rules game, of no stitching on the corrupt board, Thankyou Gov Cuomo for enabling this by your non actions and sleeping with the real estate people i am not paying for their corruption as a previous poster was concerned about. Being an original orner and here at the conversion, i cant be BS like the rest of the people.Newspapers soon. prefer a real lawyer first, so i coud just get out. Late annual audited financial, no audited financials, postmarks on the real estate mailings with the coops code on them, Fraud parking tickets for writing a complaint aginst their self dealing.

The courts cases involving this show that the use of the word "and" is ambiguous. In all likelihood, IMMEDIATE family is permitted to stay there wihtout the primary shareholders present and it is not considered a sublet. Especially if it has been the case for many years in any given building. If they are good residents and the bills are paid - why bother anyone?

What happens if the relative then brings in roommates? Thanks.

Habitat has run a couple of interesting articles on roommates of subletters (check out the archive under the topic "Roommates" if you have access). The attorneys seemed to agree that a subletter would probably have the same rights under the Roommate Law as the shareholder does: the right to one roommate without the consent of the board. The subletter would only be obligated to provide the name of the roommate. However, there were some questions on the details, and it was observed that this situation doesn't appear to have any clear case law behind it yet.

Eveyrone may have a roomate. This applies to all coops, condo etc . There is no grey area.
They may evern have a roommate who has a child. I.E. you can have a roommate and their dependent child living with you.
The roommate law is wonderful and helpful to many.

There are three sub-issues here.

(1) Yes, it is clear-cut that a co-op shareholder may have a roommate, regardless of what the proprietary lease says. The Roommate Law trumps the lease.

(2) It is very likely (but not 100% certain) that a subtenant in a co-op has the right to a roommate. Again, I refer you to the Habitat articles for detailed discussions by several attorneys, who are not in complete agreement. It appears that this issue has not been tested in the courts.

(3) Oddly, the condo case is in some ways the murkiest because a unit-owner is not a lessee, to which the Roommate Law applies. Here's a quote from "A Subtenant's Roommate" in the June 2012 issue of Habitat:

"As an aside, the law’s applicability to condos is far more cloudy. The owner’s occupancy of a condo unit is not granted by a “lease or rental agreement,” to which the law applies. So, the Roommate Law itself does not permit a unit-owner to take in a roommate; instead the condo bylaws would determine that. In fact, most do not expressly allow it, although New York State and New York City anti-discrimination laws might require it. The lessee of a condo unit arguably could, however, invoke the Roommate Law and bring in a roommate even though condo leases almost always are expressly subject to condo bylaws and other governing documents. That is because the Roommate Law makes any waiver in a lease “null and void.” On the other hand, a unit-owner also seemingly cannot grant rights greater than he has, so if the unit-owner cannot take in a roommate then arguably neither can his tenant."

If a coop or condo was allowed to only permit the shareholder(s) or owner(s), it would most likely be in violation of the law. What if the shareholder/owner got married or had a child? Or took in a roommate, domestic partner? You would have to modify the lease or deed? Would approval be needed? I don't think that would fly.
'Roommate' can be a cohabitant, but the key here is CO - residing WITH the shareholder/owner. If the shareholder/owner is not in residence, there can be no roommate. It would then be a sublet, legal or illegal.

TLP: Except for one early case from 1994 (Barbizon Owners Corp. v. Chudick), the courts have consistently held that "Lessee AND" is *not* ambiguous and *does* require concurrent occupancy by the shareholder. See this discussion in "The Cooperator" from 2009: http://cooperator.com/articles/1939/1/QampA-Subletting-Sisters/Page1.html Are you aware of any case since 2009 where a court has ruled otherwise? It seems pretty dubious, as this would have been a significant reversal.

There are other issues to consider, of course. The Cooperator article mentions that the board might be barred from acting by laches (failure to pursue their claim within a reasonable time). And as you note, many boards don't bother to enforce this provision, though you'd need to ask an attorney how this might interfere with their ability to enforce sublet fees for other apartments.

The use of the word "and " or "or" is ambiguous. Therefore the tenant or subtenant woudk probably prevail in a court case. Why dont you just let the immediate family member or subtenent alone?

MTK, please google the following cases (or check out the article by Siegler and Talel in the 11/03/2004 issue of the NY Law Journal):

Thwaites House Owners Corp. v. Vega
Wiesz v. 233 East 69th Owners Corp.
445/86 Owners Corp. v. Haydon

All of these cases ruled that "Lessee AND" was *not* ambiguous and *did* require concurrent occupancy by the shareholder. If you are aware of more recent cases that have ruled otherwise (the anomalous Barbizon case predates these), please let me know.

It's not unreasonable to leave the relative alone, but the issue is that it may affect your ability to collect sublet fees on other apartments. That's a question for your co-op attorney. I'm not a lawyer and am not sure of the answer.

JG: I agree that making an effort to regulate roommates of subtenants in co-ops - or roommates of anyone in a condo - is replete with thorny problems and is a bad idea. The Roommate Law may apply with 100% certainty only to rental buildings and shareholders in a co-op, but it seems very likely that it would be extended to subtenants and condos if challenged.

i remember in the 2010 annual meeting bringing up the excess number of non owner occupied apartments, many were parent child type, which the board let the parent buy for the child, or the parent lied in the interview the whole time, and the child who was never mentioned moved in. i informed the board that these were against our proprietary lease , par 14 and gave the copy of the NY law Journal? that had all these case laws that are mentioned above to show that what they were doing was against the proprietary lease. They continued to let parents buy and the children occupy, where we now might have a sub 60 or 50% owner-occupied ratio, plus no income from these parent child ones.This has destroyed the value of the apartments,Dropping 40 to 60%, which they blame on me, because i bring it up and have fought against it, since i know it ruins the value of coops and goes against the whole concept of allowing rentals to convert to coops. The board/managing company turned it back into a rental, but much worse for the original owners who now are senior citizens,disabled, and their home and security has been stolen from them

No, house rules do not "become null and void" simply because they have never been enforced. However, if a board decides to begin enforcing a long-ignored rule, the enforcement must be even-handed. If you have a rule against tap-dancing in the hallways, then you can't stop Mr. Jones from dancing while allowing Ms. Smith to do so, even if Ms. Smith is a much better dancer.

House rules can be enforced whenever the Board wishes. they don't become null and void because they aren't actively enforced, but they must be enforced without singling anyone out. If a reminder goes out, it should go out to all so that it doesn't appear anyone is being unfairly treated.

We are in a much worse situation. He is Hungarian, came to this country 25 years ago (after the fall of the Berlin Wall) with his family, and immediately started enriching himself at out expense. He and his family (him, the wife and the daughter) drive 3 luxury vehicles (Mercedes and BMW's), they already own 4 apartments in our Coop and 2 houses in Pensyilvania, he charges us for everything (little repairs of disrepairs that he himself had caused to collect jobs opportunities), regularly break-in (he is a master locksmith and taugh his two sons the basics) entering in my apartment to steal clothes, tools, household items, whatever his wife fancies. They have a big chandelier with hanging crystals - the type that would normally hang in a luxury dinning-room - in his bedroom! That's how refined Madame the Duchess (his Hungarian wife) is. His daughter forbids us to critized her "dad" or post complaints. We have to pay another guy, a janitor, to do the cleaning and taking the garbage out. As for weeding out the back alley, nobody does that, not even the janitor, we'll have to hire a yard cleaning service to do that. The weeds and bushes have grown to 3 and 4 foot tall....No way to get rid of him, he's been appointed by the sponsor himself, and has unlimited carte blanch to exploit us... His two sons do painting jobs in the lobby ( totally unnecessary) to the tune of $34,000, and other painting jobs around this and other buildings owned by the sponsor. The entire family lives off us.

both of these situations sound out of control. how about reaching out to your management company, REBNY or the building's counsel for advice?

Coop corruption is a plague and there are no laws that protect us neither in housing, neither in bankrutcy courts. It is a shame that we are treated as second class citizens. We can loose our coop home just for a few dollars especially if we have no mortgage. That is why we are organized and fighting to pass laws. Check out COOPABUSE.COM for coop horrible stories and register to fight together. You can email me at ROSA.NAZAR@GMAIL.COM

Managing agent, Board president, Sponsor....they are all in cahoots together. The lawyer of the coop is a scoundrel who told th Annual Meeting that the "perennial" directors will continue being "elected" again and again, in perpetuity, because there is nothing in the Proprietary Lease that forbids it or impose terms limits (they have been in power for 25 years). He also wrote me a letter threatening me with termination and eviction, for telling "lies" to the tenants: that's how characterizes my efforts to educate and organize the tenant shareholders. He went to our political representatives, Mr. Dinowitz and Mr. Koppell (Riverdale-Kingsbridge area of the Bronx with reports about these calamities...and nothing. They added insult to injury with their hypocritical advise: "go get elected to board and change everything from the inside." This felt like a slap in the face, and my sould still burns with indignation. But this is a conspiracy, a vast conspiracy, and only the US Attorney or the State Attorney have the power to deal with it. For my part, I am looking for an aggressive attorney to sue the hell of all of these scoundrels. Please, if anybody, a good and knowledgeable lawyer is out there, please contact me. Jerry M. Grosofl - carminis@outlook.com. Thank you.

REBNY IS SO CORRUPT. fOLLOW THE $$ TRAIL WHO THEY ENDORSE AND WHO SITS ON THEIR BOARD.

Donald Capoccia
BFC Construction/L&M Management

The worst of the worst

The stomping continues so…
It is management’s strategy to neutralize a whistleblower by making them complain about noise, then say it’s a he said, she said situation and telling everyone they are crazy. Also they manipulated themselves into having control over renters. Two or more times, manaagement tried to get an amendment passed to give them control over renters. The amendment was unanimously denied each time. Management waited a couple of months and then sent out a memo entitled “Policy Changes” giving themselves all the power in the amendment that was denied them. So they can position renters where they want them.
But there is more to this story than appears – management may have lost the assistance of their “little” “enablers” – to be continued if stomping continues…….

The stomping has become somewhat quieter– not continuously like before but this morning I went out early to check on the snow – heard banging and thinking it was the twit upstairs, I ignored it. Hours later I went back out to again check on the snow and heard the same banging – I realized it wasn’t coming from above but from another unit. I knocked on the door and found that owner had fallen and spend the night on the floor and was banging trying to get help. Fortunately, I was able to get help to her but it would have been hours sooner if not for the harassment against me. SO STEVE IF YOU ARE READING THIS – THE OWNER IS NOT DOING WELL AND IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO HER – YOU CAN ADD MURDER TO YOUR LONG LONG LIST OF CRIMES.

Sounds like the wrong approach to the problem, assuming you're talking about a sponsor-owned apartment that has never been occupied by a shareholder. In that case, the shares associated with the apartment are "unsold shares." By blocking the transfer, you'll be in default under the proprietary lease, based on the clause that runs something like this: "Neither the subletting of the apartment nor the assignment of this lease, by the Lessee who is the holder of the block of Unsold Shares allocated thereto, shall require the consents of the Directors or shareholders ..."

Talk to your attorney for advice on how to proceed. Deliberately defaulting on the lease is almost never a good idea.

Nothing you can do, nor is it illegal.
Most "offering" plans exempt the sponsor from board approval when selling "unsold shares". And the sponsor is free to sell his unit to whomever they want to.

Corruption is a plague in coops. The whole formation of coops was a fraud. We had a similar situation in out coop here in the Bronx (Riverdale). Here the sponsor owned more than 50% (close to 54%). The management company was a company of the sponsor. The contract between the coop and the management was a one way contract where it benefit only the management co. The cancel the contract where were questioned about some payment and left the new board alone. The ex president who was there since the coop was formed made life very difficult. The started with wll the hope as you do but since the sponsor own more than 50 % all decision were sponsor's decisions. I hope your sponsor only own 10% or less. Do not let him scare you. Tell him you will have to go to the attorney general and you will see how fast he will give it you. Coop corruption is a plague and we to win this fight we need to fight together. We are organized and making politicians aware that this is a crime that is destroying us financially and emotionally; we could end up homeless. Please take at look at COOPABUSE.COM and register to receive info. Also email me at ROSA.NAZAR@GMAIL.COM and I will keep you inform of our activities. We win if you fight the corruption together.

Go to your co-op attorney for assistance. They should know how to deal with this. If you don't have a co-op attorney then get one. There are a number of firms that do work with co-ops that can deal with it.

I agree with Burt that you need to contact your co-op attorney - and FAST. With the keys to the castle in the hands of a vindictive ex-board member, you need to make sure that this jerk doesn't try to wreak havoc by throwing away important mail, or by handing out parking permits and entrance fobs to convicted pedophiles. In fact, once you have back all the security tokens, I would strongly recommend that you change the locks on anything that can be easily duplicated, such as mailbox keys.

If the ex-president refuses to cooperate even after your attorney intervenes, I would change everything in sight, including the security entrance fobs. You'll need to check with your attorney to be sure, but I believe you could probably bill the changeover expenses to the offending ex-president, after proper notice that he must return everything or face the consequences. (I'm not an attorney and you should always check with yours before billing unusual charges to a shareholder.)

Yes, Chris, go get a lawyer right away and sue the former president for breach of fiduciary duties and tortious interference with the business of the Coop. But I would also ad a caveat: the Coop lawyer, if there is one, probably was hired by the former board and its loyalties are with them (don't expect objectivity and fairness from any lawyer, they are all mercenary selfish slimy people). Get a new one, call the bar association and get a names, interview them, and talk to him in earnest, establish very clearly, from the beginning, that you want legal action, and you want it now. (they all offer you just negotiation, writing letters to the board, etc, they all have this attitude that they want your money, but not going to court or filing anything in your behalf, they are lazy).
And be happy that you were able to dislodge the former board. You have no idea what a miracle that is. Here in my coop we still have the original board appointed by Sponsor 25 years ago! All my efforts to run for the board (a 5 years efforts) have been blocked and defeated, because the Sponsor/HUS is still around, controlling a big chunk of shares, plus other clearly illegal shenanigans, like starting the annual meeting without a roll call and without a quorum, and having populated the list of shareholders with nominal absentee owners whom nobody knows who or where they are, probably fictitious characters, just standees for the Sponsor. Out of 121 apartments, I located only about 30 owners, and my efforts to educate and organize them has unleashed a campaign of terror from the board, threatenind them with termination and eviction if support my efforts. The coop lawyer has also sent me a letter threatening with the same thing, for trying to educate and organize the tenant, get them to sign petitions, etc...You have no idea what enclaves of lawnessness the coops are, under the dictatorship of the omonipotent-unscrutable board of perennial directors and sponsors in perpetuity. Fight on, and good luck to you and your valiant efforts. Jerry Grosof, CONCERNED CITIZENS for COOP REFORM- P.O. . Box 568 -Bronx NY 10463. - g5grosof@msn.com

Try Property Shark to get names of owners

While the rates are down, the valuations have done up. There's an article here from Friday that explains it.

The most fiscally responsible thing is to raise maintenance if the end result of lower rate + higher valuation = higher tax payments.

Board members too often drink the cool-aide of "oh well costs have to go up - Not so. I you examine each line item you can work to realize savings and balance the budget without necessarily increasing maitenance levels and getting caught in that spiral. I actually thing i this is something encouraged by managing companies as they work to justify increasing their fees. So, in shirt, don't be a sheep. be a dynamo board member. For example, obviously an increased tax rate help offset any increase in assessed value.

Do you have the link for the new NYC tax rates?

I think they're in the habitat story on the front page

He is right. You'll never reach a consensus by consulting everyone.
On the other hand, if you wish to have a more "open" process, consider establishing a "renovation committee" with a board member as the head.

Thank you, vp, for your insight. I'll suggest it to the Board! Incidentally, we agreed with him too, but I don't think we should do it without the shareholders having any input at all. Maybe after we have made preliminary choices, bring them into it....

I see the designers point; a committee will most likely never get done. If you want a committee with residents and one board member, I'd advise that the board member be in charge and is a very strong leader with a great follow-through skills. The person that is least liked, if you will, a business person, an architect, engineer or a project leader would probably be most likely to actually get a committee to agree on something. I've seen buildings argue about hallway colors for over a decade, despite already paying the designers 2/3 of their full fees.

Just to clarify: The committee's only purpose is to make recommendations to the board, which will have the final say (a vote).
I suggest you set some parameters before moving forward, and only allow the committee to work within those guidelines. Things can easily turn into a time consuming circus.

I like in a coop and the hall was renovated and it cost almost 2 million. The job was cheap; no receipts were shown. Be transparent to the shareholders; you owe a fiduciary duty to them. Make sure nobody on the board is getting any benefit from this contractor. Please check COOPABUSE. COM to see all the corruptions in coop. Or email me at ROSA,NAZAR@GMAIL.COM. We are working together to protect the coop home.

Thank you, Rosa! Our concern about our fiduciary duty and transparency are why I wrote, and I appreciate your note. We got the name of this contractor from our management company (as well as other names) and have checked him out. Our budget is far lower than that - I think we'll be fine in that regard. Thank you again.

why not do this: narrow it down to 2 versions and post those in the lobby (carpet sample, paint swatch, wallpaper sample, photo of couch) and let people vote on ONLY those 2.

fgh - Thank you for your suggestion also! This Board Talk has been helpful, and I appreciate everyone's input!

We learned the hard way and Transparacy is a must! A small committee, one Board member and two Shareholders who are very well known interior designers came up with two choices and the Shareholders voted. Even those who did not like the final choice, agreed that this was fair.
HOWEVER -- years ago two Board members redesigned the halls -- to their personal taste. The horrible black doors that cant be maintained (one Board member wanted an artistic look) suck up the light in the halls, and the pink wall paper make the halls look like a cheap bordello -- we also learned that one of the Board members used the left over wall-paper for the bed rooms in her country house.
Our last "decorating commettee" was two board members who installed cheap linoleum in our wood planeled elevator -- looked cheap and within three months had to be replaced. -- So, being a Board member does NOT make you a designer or a person with good taste.