in short: the shareholder allowed access to the landlord to repair what the SH thought to be violations related to leaks that are the coops responsible to repair and restore.
If there was work over and above and the lessee did not notify the shareholder he might be responsible and the SH did not in any way hire or retain the contractors - then who pays?

Is this true/false, multiple choice, or essay?

Is this true/false, multiple choice, or essay?

Con Ed and National Grid have different rates. If you used gas for home heating, you would have a home heating rate (lower price due to higher amount of gas usage).
I would think that your dryer, fireplace and heating stove would all be ok under your current service, assuming the piping can handle the needed volume of gas. You could check with your plumber for his opinion as well.

The rights of the trustee will depend on both your By-Laws and the trust agreement that the shareholder and the co-op executed when the shares and lease were transferred to the trust. Let's hope there WAS such an agreement!

I can't address the specifics of your case, but I can tell you how it works with the trust-owned apartment in our own building. We required the execution of a detailed agreement before consenting to transfer ownership to the trust. Among other things, we wanted to ensure that issues of occupancy and transfer were fully spelled out. There's a specific list of people who can occupy the apartment; we don't allow any random "representative of the trust" to live there.

As for voting, our trust agreement contains this clause: "Only the Trustee shall have the right to vote the Shares unless the Trustee provides someone else with a written proxy." That may or may not correspond to any clause in your own trust agreement.

As for who (if anyone) is eligible to run for the board, you'll need to check both your agreement and your By-Laws. In our case, the trustee cannot serve on the board because our By-Laws require that all directors be residents of the building.

Please review this with your lawyer, as I am not an attorney and the answers are not clear-cut.

There was a very good article in this month's issue of Habitat about Co-op shares being put into trusts. You can find it here: http://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/2012/2012-October/Featured-Articles/Attorneys-Describe-Inter-Vivos-Case#.UIYVjVFP8W8

What I took away from the article is that if the board has not formally approved the transfer of the shares into the trust, the transfer doesn't exist for legal and tax purposes regardless of what the trust or shareholder say. All Co-op stock transfers *must* be authorized by a vote of the board.

From my own perspective as a board member, I would be very wary of allowing trusts, or *any* non-human entity (corporation, LLP, LLC, etc) to own the shares, for many of the reasons stated in the article.

The first thing I would do is ask your Co-op attorney to explain the pros and cons of a trust or other non-human entity from owning shares. If you decide that you will allow it (example, an older couple who want to put the shares into trust for estate planning purposes), make sure your attorney is involved to protect the rights and interests of the Co-op.

The questions you are asking are excellent, and your attorney should be able to help you with the answers.

Speak with your board attorney about this. If you do anything without proper legal guidence you could be screwed worse than the unruly shareholder.

The book , The Coop Bible' has this tip: "if your board is smart it should demand a volume discount (with the lawyer) because often they have to file several times."

melissa,

can you explain the volume discount concept and how it would work. Our special property tax counsel for our coop building contests our assessment annually ie filing challenges once a year.

Since tax certiorari attorneys bill on a contingency fee basis, fees are based on sliding scale with larger buildings (with larger assessments) paying lower contingency fees. 15%-20% is standard depending on size of property.

http://cooperator.com/articles/941/1/Challenging-Your-Real-Estate-Taxes/Page1.html

Ask your Co-op attorney. If the attorney is hired or paid by your Sponsor, have the board engage another attorney so the board becomes her/his client and not the sponsor.

Hi,

Wow. Unless the sponsor is spending the funds in the building, this is a huge red flag. Our sponsor went bankrupt some years ago and what a mess that was (the co-op eventually received the unsold shares). You need a co-op/condo lawyer and fast.

First, remember the board has the final approval of whether of loans secured by the building's shares so the board can nix any loan against unsold shares. Second, now is the time for the board to buy the sponsor's unsold shares--by getting its own loan if it has to.
Third, Use the board's leverage to get a very good price for the shares.
Fourth, be prepared for tough negotiations but the board has the upper hand.
Fifth, Yes, get a lawyer but not the usual suspects on board of NY Co-operative Council: they usually represent sponsors or want to someday because boards hire and fire attorneys, are slow pays, argue abt fees, have trouble making decisions, etc.

You need to listen to Rita - she has been there and saved our co-op, where I am President now.

Hi Samsaunt,

Before jumping to any conclusions, I would contact the board president to find out if the guest policy was recently changed, and if it was, to what new policy. It is possible the managing agent "misinterpreted" the new policy. You might also ask for a printed copy of the revised house rules.

If the house rules were changed to a no-guest-without-owner policy, check your proprietary lease. If there is anything in the lease about guests, I believe it trumps (i.e. "your fired") the house rules.

If that doesn't work, politely ask the board president for the reason the policy was changed, and explain your situation to her/him. You may find that the rules were changed because of the advent of AirBNB, Craig's List, and the other venues where apartment owners "rent" out their apartments to strangers for very short periods of time to generate income. This is almost certainly against the rules for subletting. I realize this is not your case, but unfortunately the proliferation of these illegal sublets has caused boards to become much more restrictive with their guest policies.

As a board member, I recommend that you approach this with the idea that you and the board will be able to work out a compromise. If you can come up with ways of differentiating your situation from short-term rentals to strangers, propose them to the board. You may have to provide background info about your guests and the board may want to meet with them before the they stay in your apartment for the first time. You might even offer to pay for the managing agent to run a background check on your guests. This is not prying, but the board's way of protecting the safety and security of the other shareholders. I would do this in my building.

I'm sorry you've been caught on the cusp of a policy change, but I do understand your board's perspective. With the explosion of tourism in NYC and the corresponding dramatic increase in hotel room rates, any reasonably-priced accommodation is now very valuable. You need to work with your board to validate your personal relationship with your guests and also to prove to the board that they don't pose a threat to the building or the shareholders.

Good luck with your efforts.

Thanks for writing back, to both of you! Your input is very helpful. I totally DO understand why the board is doing this. In our interview they talked about the NYC hotel law, and that people were breaking the law by renting out their apartments. The thing is that we also made it clear in our interview, against the advice of our realtor (!), that we wanted to be able to have family and friends use the apartment occasionally, since it was not our primary residence. I feel like they must have known that they were contemplating this move, and I feel duped that they didn't tell us. I did ask for the new policy in writing, and it's very clear. It says "Under no circumstances is a Guest permitted unless you are in residence". It seems really so sad that, since we aren't "In Residence" most of the time, we can't occasionally let our close friends and families enjoy the property we just purchased. I will look at the proprietary lease, and if that doesn't work, I guess I'll try and reach out to the board. Thank you again, and if you have any other ideas, let me know!

Check your proprietary lease on this. Immediate family (parents, kids over 18, siblings) may be exempt from being classified as guests. Not a good solution but a partial one.

Another possible compromise might be to offer some sort of escrow or bond against any damages to the building or any extra expenses incurred by the building related to your guests. Clearly this would never be used, but might give the board a warmer and fuzzier feeling.

Hi Samsaunt,

I am a Board President of a 111 unit co-op in Inwood. I would check your Proprietary Lease as well. The Proprietary Lease is usually more difficult to change and usually governs. Finally, since you just bought and the Board did not disclose their new policy to you (or contemplated new policy), ask for an exception (in writing) as a way to smooth things over.

It would be quite unusual for a co-op to allow guests to stay in your apartment when you aren't there. This is often spelled out explicitly in the Proprietary Lease, and you should check yours to see what it says. In ours, which uses the same template as many other NYC co-ops, it's under Paragraph 14 (Use of Premises):

"... the apartment may be occupied from time to time by guests of the Lessee [shareholder] for a period of time not exceeding one month, unless a longer period is approved prior thereto in writing by the Lessor [co-op], but no guests may occupy the apartment unless one or more of the permitted adult residents are then in occupancy or unless consented to in writing prior thereto by the Lessor."

If your Lease explicitly allows you to have guests in your absence, which is possible but unlikely, then it's not clear the board would be able to override that provision with a House Rule. The permission to have guests at arbitrary times could be considered a material term of the lease. You'd need to ask a lawyer about that.

As a followup to the good responses you've received, you might try to work out a compromise with your board. If you can limit your stay-alone guests to one family (for example), you might find that the board is willing to make an exception. "My sister Mayella and her husband would like to stay in the apartment for two weeks every summer" is much more appetizing than "Random friends of my choice will be living here in my absence whenever I feel like it."

Also, don't try to argue that you shouldn't be bound by a new House Rule you didn't expect. That argument is going to lose. See Horwitz v. 1025 Fifth Avenue, in which a new House Rule required a shareholder to remove an awning that had been in place for *decades*. But again, if your Proprietary Lease contains the unusual provision that guests may stay in your absence, then there's a good chance a House Rule wouldn't be able to override it. A lawyer would need to address that question.

I doubt anyone would put an affirmative answer to you question in writing, even if anonymously in this forum. Also, you have no idea about the motives behind any answer you receive here, so you use them at your own risk.

Your best bet is to contact your Co-op attorney for guidence.

Good luck.

i would put a recorder that turns in when speech is detected, think it is called VOX or something, many of the cheap ones have them, including usb thumb drive types and pens, even the video recording pens that normally quit working , the vox recording will still work and you donet need to expose a baseball bat size pen.
If you have that with you ,or whoever is being shaken down,and you catch it on a digital medium, always keep the original digital medium, never copy off it and use it somewhere else. you can copy off of it , to save in the cloud and multiple places, but keep the sd card,labeled and locked,so it can't be recorder over by mistake..
If the person is lucky enough to get the shakedown request on audio , or audio /video if you use a more advanced unit for around $50.
Now you have the problem of what to do. Sanitation men tend to stick to gether, so it is not like a building inspector ,restaurant inspector. the best bet when inn a situation like that is have multiple camera videotaping everything around the property. It wasnt too many years ago that a sanitation worker got caught (due to video)breaking fluorescent tubes in front of a business under the EL , and then fined the owner . The good news is that infrared video cameras nowadays are cheap, 5 or more with DVR system for 500 or less at Costco, 10 cameras for under 1000, $750 sometimes. All infrared, always test the range of the infrared, lights in the area will make it work for a good distance. Costco you can return easy, and many system you can add-on cameras, and start with 5. It is good to have that protection anyhow, well hidden cameras, can dispute slip and fall clams, and easily pay for themselves. Using a motion sensitive device, that has been tested by the user, keeps the recording to movement activation only. With the media , the next step is to find out how ro use it. Lawyers advice would be a good idea at that point. You will need the cameras if the ir is retaliation, so good to look into it now, and overall they are good to have, IP cameras can also be monitored via a smartphone. I believe it is illegal for a sanitation worker to accept a gift, period. Sometimes they make a gift valued under $5 ok, but no yearly tips, and shakedowns push it into a criminal act ,as opposed to a workplace violation that could result in dismissal.

I think someone's been watching too much Law & Order and CSI.

Before spending any money on surreptitious recording equipment, video surveillance equipment, and criminal lawyers to help you fight whatever laws you might be breaking by doing all this recording, contact your board's attorney with these allegations. If they're good they will help you, and if they're great they will refer you to another attorney who specializes in these kinds of situations.

Rest assured that whoever you accuse of bribery will be doing the same.

i use the equipment all the time, i know the laws. If people would learn you rights , you have a much better chance with video evidence. I have recorded police many times, they didn't like it , they threatened , and they did nothing but huff and puff. If they acted like they were videotape all the time, we wold have less payouts on winning lawsuits. The use of video camera by citizen activist resulted in quite a few were overturned at the RNC in NYC, I forget the numbers but quite a few people lives were saved, as a bogus conviction would have meant goodbye job , market. he guy in times square who was attacked by a probationary officer and cited with felony charges was saved by a tourist recording of the incident , all charges wee dismissed , the cop was convicted of charges that carried a higher penalty then perjury. substantial. The bicycle received 2 million dollars from the city if NY, all by a video without that video the lying cop would have him still in jail. You are allowed to videotape or photo anyone while you are on public property or your property, common areas of your coop are your property. The girls maced or pepper sprayed my the white shirt officers will get a good settlement, all due to videotape. Too bad they do not make the police responsible for their illegal actions and make them pay, we pay because they break the laws. All smart bicyclist now ride with video and it has solved a couple hit and runs. I have been using a dash cam in my car for over 8 years. The one i have now has gps data and black box info. The next one i will by records front and rear.Cameras in my apartment tell me as soon as someone enters even if i was in Europe, and i will have a permanent video history in the cloud. I can even talk to them and hear them , $180, for the pan and tilt 2 way audio cameras. Locks are BS,, i can pick locks, but now they have bumping tools. I would much rather call the police and email the police a photo while they are still in the apartment.
The most important thing s you can always photo or video on public property. The bridges and tunnels stuff hasn't been tested in court yet, but even top cps know you can still take picture in the subway, but you will be stopped.
12 year old kids have taken out cops that were making multiple violations while questioning him. Due to the cops illegal questioning every arrest he made before becomes tainted.
i will stick with my cameras .

Before I or anyone else accepts the validity of your opinions, I have two really simple questions:
1) What lawschool did you graduate from?
2) In what states are you admitted to practice law?

I'm sure you should have no trouble responding to both.

While sanitation workers can be "forward" when it come to holiday tips ( I had one that always stopped by at holiday season to remind us so). I took his name and badge number and reported him to his supervisor and he never came by again.

As regarding violations, the city goes into blitz mode when it needs money and agents write tickets as do police, traffic wardens etc. Just be extra careful and vigilant when you are putting items out for collection. Proveing that you are being singled out can be difficult. I would keep a log of such events, when you received a summons, why? did the other buildings on your block get fines etc?

Hope this was helpful,
MRM

It sounds like you've a got a board that isn't taking care of its fiduciary responsibility, one of the biggest of which is care and maintenance of the building itself. This sounds like the kind of board that only responds to lawyers and subpoenas. I'm sure there are housing advocates and similar agencies, which you can find online, who might help you at no cost. If you are a senior, there's a city agency that will help you.

This kind of behavior by a board is intolerable: You don't say "he said she said" and then refuse to consider surveillance-video documentation. I'm also curious why this board doesn't ask the managing agent who witnessed the exchange his view of what happened.

Needless to say, no super ever has ANY rationale to yell at a resident, and no one has any right to make vicious mental-health claims.

Please follow this link:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/nyc/housing/services.shtml

especially the sections describing the Help Centers and Volunteer Lawyers Project.

The legal system views your relationship with the board as that of a tenant to a landlord. As is the case with any living situation where a lease is involved, the landlord has certain legal obligations, one of which is the warrant of habitability.

Although I have no first hand experience with the NYC Housing Part, my understanding is that they are very pro tenant. In other words, it's not a place a board wants to have to defend itself for failing to ensure that water does not leak into your apartment.

Why don't you read about the court, go down and talk to someone there, then sue the b******s?