Ask for Mindy Goldberg at NCB.

Can't say enough about Mindy-she is slow on returning calls but that's cause she's really good and in demand. Stay away from mortgage brokers whatever you do and beware prepayment penalties.

Good luck!

Student loans.
Tax Installments / Payment plans.

Sorry to respond so late. Thanks for the infp. which I forearded to the involved parties. So sad that the family wants nothing to do with the parent.

The code is below for your perusal... generally you hagve 3 feet bu law aroung the paremeter of an opening, rule of thumnb, but not current code is never below an opening as lind, fumes, etc will be taken in from the opening.

Uniform Mechanical Code
M1502.2 Duct termination. Exhaust ducts shall terminate on the outside of the building. Exhaust duct terminations shall be in accordance with the dryer manufacturer’s installation instructions. Exhaust ducts shall terminate not less than 3 feet (914 mm) in any direction from openings into buildings. .Exhaust duct terminations shall be equipped with a backdraft damper. Screens shall not be installed at the duct termination

One thing to consider If you're moving that dryer vent though. There are codes for that. You're allowed 25' of developed run of 4" vent. 90* elbows count as 5', 45* elbows count as 2-1/2'. Add up the footage of pipe and then add your elbows up. The reason for this code is that some dryers are not capable of "pushing" much farther, which can lead to fires if lint builds up. Gas dryers are venting combustion gases as well.

Best
~AR

Look to your prop lease under the paragraph about subletting. That should have the info you need with regards to how long a visitor can stay before it is considered a sublet and in need of board approval. If memory serves, and I might be wrong, is usually a month max.

As long as the shareholder lives in the unit during the roommate's stay, there is no need for board approval.
You can have a guest, family or roommate for as long as you wish.

As a courtesy, you might want to inform the super that a "new face" will be in the building for a while.

Perhaps hiring an expeditor who deals with this type of thing exclusively will make it easier for you and for the building. Send your violations received to your elevator company as well to see if they have done the work and can certify as such.

Hi,
We found we had $3K of boiler violations outstanding from 1995-2004 when we went to refi the building. This was during the tenure of a builiding manager we let go in 2005. Our current management company tells us there is nothing to do but pay the fines. I have heard otherwise. Any advice besides hiring an expeditor? We are a tiny builidng and no budget for that.
Thanks,

I use Jack Jaffa.. they are pretty good.. they also monitor all my building on an ongoing basis.
http://www.jackjaffa.com/

~AR

I does not happen in my building as the board suffers from selective memory

MRM

Thanks, but I'm not sure I understand your post. Unofficial meetings don't happen because your board suffers from selective memory??

Nothing wrong there.
As long as it doesn't involve important decisions.

I believe that, as long as it's not a quorum of the board, you're OK. (ie., if you have 5 members and three of you are chatting; if you have 7, and fewer than 4 are talking, etc.)

Our board did discuss this a few years back.

You can't vote on anything -- even trivial items -- unless a proper meeting notice has been sent to all board members. As for general conversation, however, prohibiting ad hoc discussions among board members seems counterproductive. Some of our most useful ideas have come from exactly such chance encounters: "I ran into Jonas yesterday and we were talking about the noise problem and thought of an interesting new approach."

RLM had a good thought about avoiding unofficial meetings that involve a quorum of board members. Even if there is no formal vote taken, the quorum may effectively reach a majority opinion without the input of the absent board members.

What does your Proprietary Lease say about elections to fill uncompleted terms? (I very nearly said 'sentences' - lol)

I believe ours states board members can elect officers, and can appoint someone to fill an uncompleted term until the next regular election. Are your terms staggered?

Can't say whether this is kosher or not without having seen your PL, sorry.

Have seen this happen with some frequency, sometimes blessed by counsel. Technically, the member resigns the about-to-expire seat & is then appointed to the seat with lots of miles remaining.

Even where all the players are well-intentioned & competent, this ALWAYS sends bad signals to owners, who naturally assume the transfer is improper & that something's being concealed.

In such cases, I recommend Boards: a] announce that they're NOT appointing a replacement--though they could--because the election is imminent; b] endorse the member they want to continue to serve, offering substantive reasons; c] ask for proxies.

Such an approach carries some risk for the Board, but tends to generate ample good will & sufficient proxies.

HabitatReporter here with advice from Jeff Reich of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP. He says,

"If the situation is as Gloria presented it, it appears that the board has not acted properly. As an initial matter, the condominium’s by-laws should be referred to in order to determine the board’s authority to fill the vacant board seat. Additionally, the by-laws will dictate whether the individual selected to fill the vacancy is entitled to serve out the full term of the manager who resigned or only until the next scheduled unit owner meeting. Assuming that the condominium by-laws do empower the board members to fill the vacancy and provides that the individual selected shall complete the term of the manager who resigned, it would not be proper for the board to select an existing board member. The reason for this is that while one person can hold two distinct offices (such as vice president and secretary), no one person can simultaneously hold two seats on a board. Even if the board member resigned his existing seat just prior to being selected to fill out the term of the manager who stepped down, those board members who are up for re-election would have to answer to the unit owners for this undemocratic act at the upcoming board meeting and could face a hostile electorate and find themselves voted off the board."

Thanks for weighing in on this, Jeff...but your response is misleading. You open by saying "it appears the board has not acted properly" but then contradict yourself, acknowledging that a board member could legitimately resign a seat up for election, then be immediately appointed to a seat with a year [or more] remaining.

This is exactly the practice I referred to in my earlier post. You point out that board members employing these tactics risk offending voters & could be voted out of office themselves; I agree fully. However, the board action we envision here is NOT improper, & therefore not actionable...except via the ballot box.

I've seen such maneuvers take place hours before an annual meeting. The election is literally over before most owners grasp what's happening. (Indeed--the election is often over before the meeting begins, determined by proxy.) When the dust clears, few have the money & drive needed to pursue redress...particularly when the best possible outcome is often another undemocratic election.

I'm aware of just one pending solution to such problems: the Ombudsman Bill sponsored by Sen. Krueger & Assemblyman Farrell. If you can suggest any possible alternatives for Gloria, or for others in her situation, I'll certainly help spread the word.

Yes. That apparently just happened to me. (It's hard to say precisely since, insanely, NYC co-ops, unlike Suffolk County, don't have to give a reason for turn-downs, which invites all sorts of favoritism and inside dealing.)

My ex-husband wanted to buy me out. I gave him a break on the price -- not a fire-sale price by any means, and one within appropriate bounds of a soft market where the co-op has been up for sale many weeks.

Apparently, that price was too low for the board, which wants to keep average sales prices up. That's great in theory, and in a normal market. But this market is DOWN, and to force homeowners into financial turmoil because of some UNREALISTIC notion of what an apartment goes for in this market is hugely misguided and even cruel.

So we're stuck. We can't get buyers to pay a price high enough for the board will accept. In effect, we're not ALLOWED to sell our apartment. We need new legislation like in Suffolk County. Boards with unfettered power cause grievous suffering.

I am conflicted on your circumstances Anon. Living in a co-op to me means cooperating with my neighbors and fellow owners – seeking a common good, if you will.

We are also living in a time of 'fair value' where assets are marked to market (one sees this a lot in the financial industry). Also, with the recent heavier allowance with on-line databases to establish value, the reliance one used to place on real estate professionals to establish a fair price and weed out exceptions with comparables is gone. One doesn’t even have to use an agent for a co-op sale at all.

Selling BELOW current market (please read carefully), even for an estate, hurts other shareholders of similar units who also have their units on the market. Our co-op also owns a former rental unit which we have renovated and is for sale. A below market price also hurts the price we could get for this unit (which is owned by all shareholders).

Have you considered that your wish to cut your ex a deal could hurt the other owners & neighbors?

Your comment is interesting, however, if you live in a small community the sale of one house will impact the others, just as in a co op or condo. The real question is, what rights does the board have through the bylaws and/or proprietary lease. Unless they have specific ability to regulate prices, then they cannot. In many cases if the board can turn down for price they must buy the unit. We live in a fair market society and a board should not be able to prevent a sale based on price. As an example, a unit is 35 years old and has never been renovated, hpow much less is that one worth than a recently renovated one? If a unit has been renovated extensively with the fnest material can the board tell the seller his house price is too low? Of course not. Prices often reflect the personal position of the seller and no one should be able to second guess them. Also, to say you don't need a broker shows your lack of knowledge regarding a real estate transacation. The broker is your first line of defense and looks out for you throughout the transaction if you hire a buyer broker. Looking at a lot of numbers does not give the buyer or seller a true picture of the market. The agent has probably seen the property and can more readily determine whether a house is pertinent. Licensees are professionals, use them as such. Again, check out the documents and then decide whether or not the board can have a say in the pricing of apartments.
Dianne Stromfeld

"Cut a deal" is a grossly exaggerated and cruel comment from someone who apparently is in "the financial industry" and has money to spare. To give additional information: I'm in financial straits, and if I don't sell my half of the apartment soon I could go under and lose the co-op I presently live in, which will hurt my present co-op. There's a domino effect to everything -- there's a bigger picture

The even larger point is, we simply can't get what the board thinks the market is. It's a matter of reality .. nobody is offering a price that is much higher than the buy-out price. I also find it hard to imagine that anybody looking at sales prices will average the 50%-of-an-apartment price of in a husband-wife buyout.

Well,
What can I say - I do not have a lot of cash, actually very little and I hope your situation recovers quickly too.

I was trying to make the point that living in a cooperative, to me anyway, means having to take into account everyone's needs - not just my own. When I am going to sell, I am going to get the most I can: to benefit both me and my neighbors.

Best of luck to you :)

You need an opinion from an attorney. There are many who specialize in co op and condo sales. One who comes to mind is Geoffrey Mazel. He is in Manhattan. I believe your proprietary lease and bylaws should cover this issue, but check it out with someone who knows the law.

A person should be able to sell their home for what ever price they choose.

The argument that allowing a distressed owner to sell quickly at a reduced price would somehow harm the "Corporation" is nonsense. The only person who will be harmed is the selling shareholder.
Ultimately, the market will dictate the long term trend in the building or marketplace.

If the price is lower than the value of the apartment,, then a bidding war will begin.
In fact, if the distressed price is low enough the apartment will probably be flipped by the new shareholder which will bring the average price back up. If the market is trending downward then prices will fall market-wide. Yet it will be only the first who are forced to enter the downward trend who are damaged by these price fixing attempts in Coops.

Anyone analyzing the market should be able to recognize a distressed sale. If there isn't a way for appraisers to recognize this very real and valid data then there is something wrong with the appraisal process.
Are New York Coops also legally allowed to deny the existence of distressed sellers? Based on what I've learned about the Business Judgment rule it wouldn't surprise me.

And who's to say that a particular buildings prices aren't artificially inflated by after market incentives that make the closing price appear higher than what it really is?
Mine is.

You can squabble back and forth all you like about the 'Law", it's pointless. These New York Robber barons figured out how to exploit the BCL a long time ago.

But, the fact that Coop apartments are traded as "shares" in a corporation means that any attempt at controlling sales prices should be considered stock price manipulation and should be investigated by the FTC.

citykid hits the nail right on the head. Co-ops boards who overreach fro some mythical "right" price that the market in fact will not bear do nothing but cause suffering and a domino effect of dashed sales.

This is why co-ops are becoming dinosaurs, and why this Utopian idea -- read about co-op history; it's fascinating and noble -- got perverted when a single judge decided that half-clueless amateurs were entitled to the same all-protective force field of the Business Judgment Rule even though boards are not professional and often unprofessional.

Just as in Suffolk County, the future is going to hold NY co-op boards to transparency and accountability. Co-op boards can't keep running like star chambers indefinitely.

While I agree that co-op boards often do things that a "professional" might not... co-op boards being volunteer positions, rather than paid ones... I think name-calling is counterproductive.

And as a lawyer reminded me recently, there's no law against stupidity or shortsightedness.

Unfortunately.

RLM makes a good point with admirable professionalism and restraint. Parsing the phrase "half-clueless amateurs," though, shows it, to me, to be not name-calling but blunt.

"Amateurs" = not a paid professional. "Half-clueless" = not aware of all the legalities, professional behaviors, etc. of a professional. I agree "clueless" would have been name-calling. I think "half-clueless" is fair and accurate for most.

You make a good argument for what should be, but, unfortunately isn't. Since we are still archaic enough not to require a reason for a co op turn down, the board can turn down the sale without giving the reason, price, race, age, marital status etc. Not unless the buyer or seller demand reasons will any be given. Most buyers and sellers just become angry and move on. Boards cannot discriminate based on any of the covered classes under the law and probably do not have the right based on price either unless they specifically have been given that right in the bylaws/proprietary lease. This doesn't mean they don't. We need to support a bill in the senate brought by Senator Liz Krueger which would gve us a state agency to call upon when we have a problem. At this point being out of sponser control means being out of protection by any agency. Second, we must support the City Council bill which will require a reason for a turn down. Co op living can be great or a nightmare. We have the ability to put our voices together and make it better; however, everyone out there must take a step. For more info on Liz Kruegers bill contact Larry Simms at www. condocoopowners.org.

HabitatReporter here with a response from Jeff Reich at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP. He says,

"Steve raises an issue that a number of cooperatives have had to grapple with during the great economic downturn of 2008 – 2009 – how to best protect the shareholders of a cooperative from what a board perceives as a below market price. This concern has led to a number of creative practices, such as parties entering into contracts for one – higher - price and closing at another – lower – price through the use of an array of seller concessions and credits.
While there are not many reported cases regarding board rejections based solely on price – possibly due to the fact that most boards will not provide a specific reason for a rejection – those that have been reported have held that a cooperative board cannot reject a purchaser solely on the grounds that the purchase price did not exceed some minimum acceptable floor price. While I am unaware of any reported cases regarding a board rejection strictly over the purchase price in the absence of any floor price policy, I believe that the specific economics of a particular transaction would play a large part in how a court would decide such a matter. In the instance where an apartment was being sold for an amount significantly below what would generally be considered a fair market value for the apartment (absent extenuating circumstances relating to the condition of the apartment) a rejection may possibly be upheld by a court pursuant to the business judgment rule.
Unfortunately, given the litigious nature of our society, whenever a board is considering rejecting a purchase application on financial grounds or due to a negative background check, it is usually better to do so prior to having an interview in order to protect against potential discrimination claims."

Well, we have refused two sales so far and both have come back with a higher offering price.