According to the New York Times (Oct. 18, 1998): "The increase [in combined apartments] has been assisted by a changed in the regulations of the New York City Buildings Department, which decided a year ago that it would no longer require a revised certificate of occupancy when spaces were connected."

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/18/realestate/in-combining-apartments-1-1-2.html

Not a legal answer, but probably fairly definitive.

> Join the conversation

JB: The following is an article from Habitat


Combining Apartments? Use Directive 14
By Frank Lovece

You're combining two apartments, something hundreds if not thousands of co-op and condo owners have done. The board gave its initial go-ahead, approved your architect's plans, signed off on your contractor being duly licensed and insured, and said OK to your construction schedule. Work went as planned, and now your board says you need to have a Department of Buildings inspector come in to revise the now-combined apartment's Certificate of Occupancy.

But wait! There's a quicker, more convenient alternative — one that some boards aren't even aware of. It's called Directive 14.

That might sound like a presidential order from a spy movie, but Directive 14, created by the Department of Buildings in 1975, is a way of obtaining a C of O revision without going through the entire C of O rigmarole. For projects not involving a change or use or occupancy, you can forego having a DOB inspector come in, and instead have the licensed architect or engineer of record simply certify that the work has all been done to code.

The DOB devised the directive at a time when 40,000 applications for C of O revisions were streaming in annually. Allowing architects and engineers to essentially self-certify — with stringent penalties for those abusing the directive — helped unplug the near-impossible backlog.

"Directive 14 is an option any permit applicant has to let the engineer or architect certify a project, so that you don't have to be physically inspected by the Department of Buildings," explains Sam Pruyn, who with his stepbrother Matthew Calvo runs the Sunnyside, Queens-based consultancy and expediting firm Building Brothers, Inc.

The way it works, says Pruyn (pronounced "prine") is that the architect or engineer "identifies at the beginning of the application process which items that the DOB requires certification for, and which items [the architect or engineer] is assuming that responsibility for. At the end of the project, [the architect or engineer] submits a follow-up form stating they have reviewed the project after it has been completed, and that all the items they were going to certify has been done up to DOB requirements."

C of O revisions "aren't really about structural changes," Pruyn notes, "but about use of the building or apartment. If a room on the first floor, let's say, is classified as storage and was turned into an apartment, that's a C of O issue. It doesn't mean there were structural changes. It just means a portion of the building that was listed as unoccupied is now occupied." Likewise, "Removing a kitchen from a combined apartment would be a C of O issue, but isn't necessarily a structural issue."

Since boards aren't always aware of Directive 14, it's up to the co-op shareholder or condo unit-owner to explain that this is a valid DOB alternative to having a city inspector physically come in for a formal inspection.

> Join the conversation

I live in a co-op in which the apartment I currently occupy consist of 2 apartments combined (that is how I originally took possession of the apartment as a renter). After the building turned co-op (to make a long story short) we had to file the appropriate paperwork to maintain the apartment in the "as-is" condition by hiring an architect who submitted all the paperwork to the Department of Buildings (DOB in NYC). However, we did not have to amend the C of O due to a law that (as I was told) was passed in the 70s stating that 2 apartments combined no longer required changing the C of O as long as you file and state that you do not want the C of O to change. By not changing the C of O (which is the least expensive option) I continue to enjoy living in a 2 apartment combined situation, however, I do pay 2 maintenance fees because in essence I own 2 share certificates. If the C of O was changed to represent that I no longer live in a 2 apartment situation, but rather live in one apartment, the total number of units in the building would decrease (in my case from 35 units to 34 units) AND I would only be allowed to have 1 share certificate, hence, pay one maintenance fee as well. I can't speak for every existing situation(s), but that was my dilemma several years ago...I do hope this was helpful.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

You've been wonderfully helpful and a real community!

> Join the conversation

In general, would you say that combinations in your typical NYC coop increase the value of the overall property?

> Join the conversation