You seem very 'controlling.'
This has never ever been a problem in our coop. In fact, it is very convenient if you have a domestic partner you wish to cohabitant with you - or a nephew with a new job in NY, etc. It also helps defray the maintenance costs.
A landlord CANNOT approve the person or ask for anything (like the nature of your relationship) than their name. This protects privacy. It is a great law and it will not change so please just accept it.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

DM - I'm glad it's working well in your co-op. I guess no one has abused the law. How can it be abused? How about this happening...

Within 2 weeks of the s/h getting a young man to be a roommate, a young woman (who is not the s/h, the roommate, or a relative of the roommate) was seen using a key at 830 AM to enter the front door of the co-op with a young man (who is not the s/h, the roommate, or a relative of the roommate) and then using a key to enter the apartment of the s/h who has the roommate.

10 days later, at 530 AM, the same young woman was seen again using a key to enter the front door of the co-op with 3 men - none of who is the s/h or the roommate. One of the man passed out (drunk or high) onto the lobby floor as soon as he entered our building. The other 2 men dragged his dead weight across the lobby floor into the elevator. Once again, these people exited the elevator - still dragging the unconscious man across the hallway floor - until the woman again used the key to enter the s/h apartment.

You call that controlling? I call that an abuse of the law and a real consequence that endangers the safety and security of our shareholders, since someone who is not the s/h or the roommate now has a key to our building.

What if a young mother with children or a senior citizen was in the lobby when this happened? They would have scared to death, and rightfully so. What kind of people come back at 530 in the morning? In Flushing they might be gangsters?

And the woman is NOT a relative of the s/h or the roommate. There's a good chance that this woman is a prostitute, using the s/h apt. as her brothel. That's because on 2 separate occasions, this woman brought 4 men back to the apt.

DM - would you be worried/afraid if you had witnessed these events? Do you think our co-op is overreacting and controlling, or is it possible that we are reacting to an obvious abuse of the Roommate Law?

I think that if this happened in your building and frightened someone in your family, you might not have such a condescending attitude towards a very real and potentially dangerous situation.

Now, just imagine if 20 other s/h went this route and we had all types of similar incidents. Like I said, I'm glad it hasn't happened to you, but please don't downplay the reality which truly threatens the safety of our s/h.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

Roommate law aside, you need to confront your board member regarding the reported complaints and incidents and explain that if further complaints are received, you will be required to take action. I also think that as a board you are within your rights to suspend her board activity until the situation has been remedied.

In New York there is the so-called Bawdy House statutes — provisions in the New York State Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law — give a landlord, board of directors, law enforcement or even a neighbor the right to terminate a lease and initiate eviction proceedings against a tenant (or owner) who uses an apartment (or co-op) for an illegal trade, such as prostitution, drug dealing or gambling.

You don’t need a conviction — you just need enough evidence to convince a housing court judge that a tenant (or owner) was engaged in repeated illegal conduct at the premises.

A landlord (or board of directors) can also file a suit in New York State Supreme Court to get an injunction requiring some sort of action forcing the board member to evict their tenant and blocking s/h from engaging in further illegal acts.

Hopefully by you confronting the board member of possible outcomes (i.e. legal), she will re-think her roommate situation.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/real-property-actions-and-proceedings-law/rpa-sect-715.html

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

Ned - Thanks for your comment. I don't know how it is in Toronto, but here in NYC it's a very long, expensive, and drawn out process to take s/h to court. The worst part is that there's no guarantee of victory, even with documentation.

It's very frustrating because we have to protect our s/h and our investments.

But, we will start making life as uncomfortable as possible for this s/h if he keeps doing what he's been doing.

There's nothing on the books that tells us what actions might disqualify a s/h from being allowed to have roommates. Having said that, we are documenting anything and everything, so that if we do end up in court, we have all of the facts fully noted.

> Join the conversation

I don't agree with DM and do agree with Marty and the 1st person who wrote regarding this issue. Yes, it has been taken advantage of and when it was enacted in the 80's it basically was for people (boyfriend & girlfriend) living together, somehow it became ambiguous to say the least and does cause inherent problems in a co-op. In my co-op we have strangers constantly, a revolving door, sometimes it could easily be an AirBnb?? Not good.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

Curious - Thanks for your comment.

We did confront this shareholder at the last Board meeting and surprised him with this info. He was unprepared and said "I wasn't home on the 2 times that the woman entered my apartment." How convenient and most likely true since we highly suspect that the s/h doesn't live in the co-op, which is one of the hardest things to prove in Housing Court.

One of the problems is that these types of things are very hard to prove, even with documentation. More importantly, judges in NYC are notoriously pro-tenant, even for cases involving co-ops.

But, I do agree that we will play hardball with this s/h and make him as uncomfortable as possible. We have taken him to court in the past for subletting. He's a real sleaze ball.

One of the potential issues with the Roommate Law, as I explained to DM, is that I think it's very rare in a co-op, in fact it's never been done before in our co-op.

Just imagine how many s/h would take a roommate in an effort to make extra bucks. I can easily see our co-op being overrun with strangers, which goes against everything that a co-op represents.

We can't change the fact that this law is on the books. But, we will enact more stringent screening and interview methods so we at least have some idea of who is in our co-op. The Board's job is to protect the safety and the investment of our shareholders, who have paid 6 figures for the privilege.

> Join the conversation