I have googeled around and so far it looks as if this is not a legal situation and the attorney general's office might be notified. no?

currently there are 60 sold units and we pay $575 per year per unit to the Managing Agency. The other 28 are sponsor owned.

Is $575 per unit high for an upper west side cooperative - 99th st?

We pay about $511 per apt (in a building with fewer apts than yours) in Hudson Heights.

As for hiring a managing agent ... the corporation hires a managing agent to handle the corporation's affairs.

I don't understand how the sponsor can hire a managing agent to run the building as well. I mean, the super reports to the board, not any one shareholder, even if it's the sponsor.

Have a discussion with your corporate counsel. He/She can figure out what's going on.

The discussion that was there a while back is still valid:

1. The sponsor retains its own management comapny to handle its units.

2. The co-op handles the co-op affairs, the individual shareholders and the sponsor.

3. The co-op management works for the co-op not for the sponsor. The co-op management may need to interact with the sponsor for preparation of amendments, sales, etc., but the loyalty is to the co-op, not to any individual shareholder or sponsor.

4. What the sponsor pays its management for managing the different builidngs they may have, its their own business and does not impact the co-op costs.

5. A maangement company not only represents co-ops, but sponsors. Just make sure your current maanagement company does not represent the sponsor in your co-op and everything is save.

The rest is bogus!

AdC

4.

You gotta bone up on your facts, man. Your posting makes no sense. PLEASE read the bylaw of our coop which we posted previously.

"All dwelling units in cooperatives occupied by nonpurchasing tenants shall be managed by the same managing agent that manages all other dwellings in the building. The law applies to both units owned by the sponsor and those by individuals.''

What this means is as follows:

1. The managing agent designated by the board of the co-op (if this were independent) represents the co-op at large. It does the maintenance collections, it pays the co-op payables, it contracts general contractors to take care of co-op responsibilities (boiler, heat companies, plumber for infrastructure, etc), it sends the letters to individual shareholders and to the sponsor management for house rules violations, it may act as the transfer agent for the co-op at large, it interfaces ith the banks, unions, etc as the agent of the Corporation.

2. The sponsor management is the AGENT for the sponsor. In its capacity it does not overlap with the CO-OP management because its role is as follows: manages the units the SPONSOR owns in your building and other buidlings by collecting the rents, following eviction notices for its own tenants that do not pay their rents, PAYING the co-op for the MAINTENANCE OF THE AGGREGATE NUMBER OF APARTMETNS IN YOUR BUILDING,will respond to the basic needs of its own subtenants in your buidling and other buildings, e.g., fixing old refrigenerators, dishwashers, changing faucets, crack toilets, etc. It RAISES problems that its subtenants may have in your co-op on their behalf, i.e., NOISE, parking needs, water penetration, etc. AGAIN, the level of interaction may have to do with procedures that boards establish within their co-ops, represent the sponsor on the board if it retains a sit, does the budget for the SPONSOR for internal repairs of units, changes of appliances, MAINTENACE and ASSESSMENTS that different co-ops may pass, etc.

So, to conclude, the activities of both managements are different and the SPONSOR management's role is the same as that of an individual shareholder. I for one, must pay my maintenance on one unit, replace or repair my refrig, A/C, dishwasher and look for a contractor to do any improvements in my apartment.

So Mr. BIG AL, think before you speak!!!

AdC

I know you may not like the suond of it - but all apartments are part of the corporation and there is to be ONE managing agent according to the law. This certianly seems to be a better envoronment for communication - to one source - one agent. than having the consusion of two. You may not like it - but this is the law.

what do you dislike about it so much?

If you have made up your mind, then thee is no enlightenment and you have closed your mind to all sort of reasoning. So, there is nothing else to talk about. It's illegal in your mind and that's what counts to you.

In my mindset, an owner of multiple units may have its own agent to manage its investments and represent in public the interests of that investor.

Good luck with your reasoning!

AdC

you have some hidden agenda thing you are not saying. the attorney general says no to tow managing agents and that is that.

The discussion that was there a while back is still valid:

1. The sponsor retains its own management comapny to handle its units.

2. The co-op management handles the co-op affairs, i.e., the individual shareholders and the sponsor, plus all the managment issues on behalf of the co-op.

3. The co-op management works for the co-op not for the sponsor. The co-op management may need to interact with the sponsor for preparation of amendments, sales, etc., but the loyalty is to the co-op, not to any individual shareholder or sponsor.

4. The sponsor pays its OWN management for managing their units in your builidng and other buildings. The co-op does not pay any money for the sponsor's management..

4A. The sponsor management may represent the sponsor on your board. So, treat the person as a professional because this person usually knows his/her business better than you do. So, getting along with this person will be a good source of informaiton, but REMEMBER, that person is there to represent the sponsor, not necessarily your interests. In other words, the interest of the co-op and the sponsor may be similar, but not 100% the same. The reason the person serves there is to make sure the board makes reasonable decisions on maintenance and assessments that does not greatly impact the sponsor's interests.

5. A maangement company not only represents co-ops, but sponsors. Just make sure your current maanagement company does not represent the sponsor in your co-op and everything is save.

The rest is bogus!

AdC

In our Coop the Management represents us and works for the Sponsor!!

Miriam,

What does your plan of conversion tell you about sponsor giving up its control? This is the most critical aspect of the governance of the co-op. When does the sponsor is supposed to relinquish in great part its influence over the co-op for purposes of conversion?

Again, boards must understand their documents and read them to get some very basic answers. The second part is getting assistance from co-op or independent counsel to interpret and act on behalf of individual shareholders so that they may start taking over governance.

AdC

AdC
Thank you. I'll have to rescue it, read it carefully and I'll come back to you all

I have several buildings where i manage the sponsors end and the coop end of the building. This is not a conflicting situatino for me or the building.

It needs to be realized that the sponsor has more of a vested interest in the property than any individual shareholder and wants the apartment and property value to raise, probably more than you do. All my decisions as a manager are exclusively with the interest of the cooperative in mind... if it prospers, the sponsor prospers.

A good manager is not a slumlord type of manager, if he has this mentality, then you have a problem as he will not want to spend adaquately on repairs and upgrades. In this case, he/she should only manage for the sponsor.

I have an excellent relationship with all 4 of my buildings where i manage both ends. My Boards like me, are not bound by a sponsor who maintains control, or any agreement... 100% free will. As a matter of fact, one building had a change of board and the new boards mission was to "graduate to a level where the sponsor is not managing the building..." Long story-short, they have since asked me to manage the building again because they didn't realise that I went way over and above in my duties as manager (in part because I managed 100% of the building).

So, like anything else, do your homework on the sponsors mindset, the management company, the manager himself and then make an informed decision based on your individual needs and findings...
Good luck

Read his/her answer. Very interesting and I don't disagree with the point of view expressed. The real issue is INTEGRITY and from your answers in the past, I believe you have it!

Thank you for your contributions.

AdC

Thank you for your complement!

Can you tell me how to contact you directly.

email me and i will give you my cell #
reapllc@aol.com

AR
(Anthony)

Right, we checked it out with an authority. A coop , comprised of both sponsor-held apartments and regular shareholders may NOT have two Managings. Period. THEY MUST HAVE ONE. Otherwise it is a violation of the General Business Law. Complaints can be made to various city agencies to remedy this.

Taking a Stab at Clarification

One Cooperative Apartment Corporation- One Managing Agent- A cooperative apartment corporation, in the eyes of the federal, state, and city governments, is one legal entity. As such, the cooperative corporation provides one point of contact for “legal service” for everything pertaining to that specific cooperative apartment corporation. This ‘entity’ can be a managing agent, and in the case of a self-managed coop, that can be either an officer of the corporation or corporate counsel to the corporation; not both in any combination. The operative phrase is one corporate entity with one legal respondent.

Two Responsible Entities For One Coop Apartment Unit in a Cooperative Apartment Corporation- The cooperative apartment corporation is known as the lessor. The tenant-shareholder (known as a lessee) owns a specific number of shares assigned to a specific apartment unit. The lessor and lessee enter into a proprietary lease which delineates the specific rights and obligations of each party to and with each other. This is a one to one relationship within the cooperative apartment corporation.

With Three Comes Potential Confusion- Should an apartment be occupied by a rental tenant, the rental tenant’s “landlord” is the tenant-shareholder of that specific apartment unit. Therefore, the “landlord” to the renter is also the lessee, not the lessor. The lessor has no direct legal responsibility to the rental tenant. The lessee can have a direct person to person relationship with the tenant renter or may engage another to act on his/her behalf as the ‘agent,’ for all things s/he is obligated to in the landlord-tenant relationship. This arrangement does not imply that a cooperative apartment corporation has two managing agents. This ménage a trios involves both an internal and external set of relationships based on different rights and responsibilities of each.

Sponsors And All That Jazz- In a cooperative apartment corporation, a sponsor is, in a sense, a lessee of the units under
his/her control and may engage his/her own agent to act as landlord for his/her responsibilities to a tenant. It is possible this ‘agent’ may turn out to be one and the same serving as a sponsor delegate on the board of directors and even potentially as the cooperative apartment building’s one managing agent. For sake of this post, the topic on whether or not such cross representation works or does not is confined to mentioning that I’ve seen it work in harmony and integrity and I’ve seen the opposite.

Seems very fudgey wudgey to me.... one managing agent is one agent. The bils, repairs etc of rent controlled/regualted tenants still inthe coop must all be managed by the same office as the shareholders. The other descriptions just seem to be a long flowery stretching of things. NO?

Plus it is inthe interest of the coop to keep the sponsor as seperate from things as they can.