This was in the NYT in 2011 - does anyone know if it is still true?
The Installation Of an Air-Conditioner
Q I am a tenant in a five-story rent-stabilized building. My landlord informed me in a letter that the law requires me to hire a licensed contractor to install a bracket under my small window air-conditioner. There is nothing about this in my lease. What am I required to do by law?
A Jonathan H. Newman, a Manhattan real estate lawyer, said that while all air-conditioners must be installed in a “safe, stable and secure manner,” no particular installation method is mandated other than for machines larger than 36,000 B.T.U. But because an improper installation can expose both landlord and tenant to personal liability, it’s in everyone’s best interests to ensure that the unit is securely attached. More information can be found on the Department of Buildings Web site at www.nyc.gov. (Search for air-conditioner installation tips.)
This was in the NYT in 2011 - does anyone know if it is still true?
The Installation Of an Air-Conditioner
Q I am a tenant in a five-story rent-stabilized building. My landlord informed me in a letter that the law requires me to hire a licensed contractor to install a bracket under my small window air-conditioner. There is nothing about this in my lease. What am I required to do by law?
A Jonathan H. Newman, a Manhattan real estate lawyer, said that while all air-conditioners must be installed in a “safe, stable and secure manner,” no particular installation method is mandated other than for machines larger than 36,000 B.T.U. But because an improper installation can expose both landlord and tenant to personal liability, it’s in everyone’s best interests to ensure that the unit is securely attached. More information can be found on the Department of Buildings Web site at www.nyc.gov. (Search for air-conditioner installation tips.)
I've been reading different rules/opinions on the ability of shareholders who are in arrears to vote in an election. One blog, which was posted here at one time, indicated that shareholders cannot be excluded based on 'class' per the NYS BCL. However, I'm reading samples of special meeting notices which exclude shareholders who are more than 2-3 months in their maintenance from participating in any election. Would someone please provide some clarify regarding this situation - a real estate attorney or experienced board member would be greatly appreciated!
> Join the conversation Comments (1)Hi, looking for recommendations for a brooklyn property management company: new construction; 68 unit; live in super; 12 hour security company.
> Join the conversation Comments (1)Our coop sent out an "addendum" to house rules stating you may have a home occupation but no foot traffic not even for music lessons. This is in direct conflict to the lease which says that zoning laws dictate what you can do. Zoning laws (in NYC) say you may give music lessons. I just wanted to get this out there in case any other coops were trying such nonesense. Check your lease!
> Join the conversation Comments (2)
We are a small 12 unit co-op with a five member board. Coop formed in the early 80's by residents in the building. Building is changing drastically, mostly for the better. But because of the small size and almost 1/2 the building serves on the board, I'm uncomfortable sharing and viewing people's personal finances - not so much on new sales but on refinances, loans etc. I know board has a fiduciary responsibility but feel people on the board are neighbors and word does spread about people's finances. I've tried to get the board to just have Finances submitted to building's accountant and get his/her ok. I haven't been successful.
People, both friend and foe view others personal finances in unsettling ways.
How can shareholders who have been in building for years be protected against 1/2 thier neighbors knowing thier personal business?
The building next door to us had a bad fire recently. Some of our shareholders got smoke/soot seepage into their units and they claim they still smell and have bad air quality even after their insurance companies sent in remediation teams. It's migrating through the party wall between our building and damaged one, as well as from our common areas. They are demanding to know what the BOD's are doing in terms of remediating the common areas and cleaning venting system of our building. What should we do? Thanks.
> Join the conversation Comments (1)
Liar,liar pants on fire. What's a board to do when shareholder insists they did not know the "rules" or that they were not informed about policies. I can't tell ou how many times I've heard shareholders state they aren't "paying a fee" or that they did not know the house rules. The board now gets signatures whenever housrerule are distributed but in some cases spouses who don't sign off or attend meetings claim they "didn't know". Most recently a " repeat offender"of this "didn't know wont pay " claimed once again they were not informed prior to moving out there would be charges. ( part time super has to run elevator for moves). In the past people would pay directly to the super. But, over the past 6 years people just don't want to pay. So, now charges that fall outside of building charges (ie, using super for personal work, running the manual frieght, and other non-coop charges).
This shareholder sent a rather punitive message to the board stating once again they did not know there were fees involved and that fees like this shoukd not go on maintenance reports as late fees get incurred.
There was a mistake made in the billings to the shareholder. The super's fee was correct but materials he purchased to protect flooring, ect was also bilked to shareholder. The protective materials belong to coop. The bill will be corrected. But, shareholder now stated the super was only working 2 hours not 4.
Again, I want to state this is a repeated offender of stating they were not informed. I am the only one on the board that feels we shoukd inform this shareholder that 1) they were notified of the moving protocols in an email.
We have proof in the form of an email that was sent to both the repeat offender and spouse and managing agent. 2) that moving protocols and fees are in the house rules which were acknowledge as receive by spousal signature. 3) billings for super fees go o. Maintenance billings that's just the way it is.
I say these liars must be confronted with the truth! My colleagues don't want to stir the pot.
Frustrated. I feel like board becomes people's servants and that they must always get their way.
Do any of your boards have a policy about who can see security camera footage, access key-fob data, etc.?
If so, or if you have opinions on this, please contact HABITAT writer Frank Lovece today or tonight at flovece@habitatmag.com
Board has been talking about voting in amendments to by-laws, which they're entitled to do, but there's disagreement over whether the suggested amendments comply with existing laws.
First proposed amendment is to deny any shareholder the right to sit on the board if his/her apartment has been listed for sale (even if he/she is still living in the apartment).
Second proposed amendment is to permit only one board director who, although being a shareholder, does not have his/her apartment in the building as his/her primary address.
It's being argued that each of these is unlawfully depriving a shareholder of the right to sit on the board. And tat a shareholder has a right to protect his/her investment by participating in the board (the decision-making body) regardless of where he/she lives or how long he/she intends to live there - the key element being ownership, not place of residence or length of time in residence. This argument concludes that if the shareholders at large aren't happy electing someone who owns here and lives elsewhere, they'll say so with their votes. At the same time, such an amendment might deprive other shareholders of the board representation they want for what might be considered irrelevant reasons.
These arguments have convinced some, but not most of the board. Our first concern is - would these amendments be legal.
Anyone have any insights?
Introduce yourself to other members of Board Talk! Log in below or register here.
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.
The current interpretation seems to be, according to our Insurance Company inspection report, our Management Company and comments by a DOB inspector: is that all thru the window units need to be supported by a bracket that carries the full weight of the AC unit and is attached to the window frame, independently of the AC unit itself, such that if someone opens the window the unit cannot fall out and down. Depending on the size of the AC unit these brackets can run from $30-75.00 plus installation. They have to be installed properly. There is no rule that says it has to be by a licensed Contractor, only that it is understood that you and the Coop are liable if it fails due to inadequacy of type/size/manufacture or a failure to install properly. It took 8 months for people to comply and we had to send the super around to yank the last 8 units that shareholders were ignoring. We charged for the removal, and will charge for the brackets and re-installation this spring. The penalty for failure due to fines and real liability is huge. It is not just the front of the building on the street. It is all units in all windows as they can fall and whack an employee, a contract worker, neighbor or playing child. Everyone accesses yards, passageways, and service entrances at some point. If it's on their head, it's on your head...! (we also had to make everyone take the flowerpots etc. off of the fire escapes as well. Insurance Co. and the Fire Department will nail you for that, big time.
Thank you for rating!
You have already rated this page, you can only rate it once!
Your rating has been changed, thanks for rating!
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.