NEW CO-OP DISCLOSURE LAW, P.2

Once a discrimination case has been opened, the secrecy of a co-op is immediately torn away. "The reason will come out," says Mazel. That's because to win a discrimination case, the burden of proof rests on the co-op board. The board must show it did not break fair housing law by discriminating, and that the reason they rejected the applicant was legitimate.

Even if a board does not discriminate, the secrecy of the process can leave a refused applicant, and the court, with doubts, says Alvin Wasserman, director of Fairfield Properties. "If you don't give a reason, you leave it open to interpretation," he says. "It just creates an air of suspicion."

For example, one of the co-ops Wasserman manages rejected a potential resident because of worries about his financing. However, the board refused to share its reasons. The frustrated applicant hired a lawyer and claimed the board rejected him because he was on anti-psychotic medication. It would be illegal to discriminate against an applicant for such a disability. The board denied the claim, saying that it had no knowledge of the applicant's medications, but since neither side could prove their claims the case dragged on for years until the board finally settled.

Wasserman believes that legislation like that in Suffolk County might cut down on such lawsuits by clarifying the process. Karpodinis thinks otherwise. "I'd favor keeping things the way they are," says the veteran board president. "It's a system that has worked well — from the co-op's perspective."

Adapted from Habitat February 2010. For the complete article and more, join our Archive >>