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.

Board Pres,

email me at the above address and I'll send you a copy of one of my alteration agreements for your reference. We need all of that info/certifications for approval.

Since kitchen/bath/electrical work touches systems (gas/electric/water/sewer) which impact not just the shareholder performing the renovation but many shareholders, why on earth would anyone not want to use a licensed & insured contractor (I am not one myself)? Next question: will your homeowner’s insurance cover you if you don’t. I am going to be frank: don’t let anyone be stupid. Require use of licensed & insured contractors.

It is imperative that you allow only contractors with proper insurance to perform work in your building. Otherwise, you're leaving the coop wide open to massive lawsuits by contractors who are injured on the job.

Even if you have a policy of "insured workers only" in place and make every effort to enforce it, New York's notoriously anti-landlord court system will not protect you. In an incredible case from 2008, a landlord was held liable for an uninsured worker's injuries even though the worker snuck into the building without the landlord's knowledge or consent, in direct violation of the lease. See http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2008/04/28/89500.htm

In short, this is an area in which you don't have any leeway. Insist unapologetically on insured workers only, and if you become aware of any unapproved work going on, have your lawyer obtain a Stop Work order immediately.

In addition to the liability insurance requisites (2,00, I also ensure they have adaquate workmans compensation in place, or they do not recieve a check.

The REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE

For work being done at XXXXX
General Liability:
Fire Damage $50,000
Medical Expenses $10,000
Personal Injury $1,000,000
General Aggregate $2,000,000
Products – comp/op Ag $1,000.00

Worker Compensation and Employers liability
$100,000 (Each accident)
$100,000 (Disease – ea employee)
$500,000 (Policy limit)

CERTIFICATE HOLDER: Tenants name and apartment number
ADDITIONAL INSURED: Building Corporation and Management Company, it's agents, employees, members and representaives

(The insurance certificate must conform to the above, must be valid on dates of job and must be received at least 24 hours prior to work being preformed.


~AR

While I believe the board had the best interests of the Condo at heart it went a little bit overboard on the rules. If they applied common sense ( I know common sense and boards in the same senctence) then some of the rules would have passed.

MRM

Dog owners in apartments are some of the most selfish creatures on earth. Poor Fido has to use the service elevator so that he can't be snapping and tugging at the leash at other people in the passenger elevator -- and they have a problem with that? Selfish, selfish, selfish. Oh, the service elevator! How horrible! Why it's like living in a POW camp! Grow up and think about other people for a change.

You are making a GENERALIZATION like ALL Chinese people are... or ALL blondes are...

NOT every dog in apartments is the lunging snapping MUTT that you referred to MANY are TRAINED and MANY, MANY MORE (like my dog) ARE EXTREMELY WELL BEHAVED BECAUSE THEY ARE SERVICE DOGS. Service Dogs are as much a part of a HANDICAPPED PERSON as a walker or wheelchair. Would you like people with walkers & wheelchairs to also use the SERVICE ENTRANCE after all they MIGHT inadvertantly run over someone's foot or bump into them? SORRY BUT THE LAW SAYS THAT A SERVICE ENTRANCE CANNOT BE USED AS A PRIMARY (OR ONLY) HANDICAPPED ACCESS ENTRANCE. Do you know what that means? YOU CANNOT ALLOCATE SERVICE DOGS TO ONLY USE THE SERVICE ENTRANCE OR ELEVATOR because ACCORDING TO LAW SERVICE DOGS ARE DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT - CHECK OUT THE LAW & DON'T GENERALIZE

Thanks for the screaming ALL-CAPS postings. This just shows exactly the kind of fanatics so many dog-owners are.

No one is talking about ADA-protected service animals. We're talking about discretionary pets.

You know, the kind that are part of pack of eight or ten in the passenger elevator with the dog walker....

Can we all agree that dogs and children are both, at times, intrusions into our lives and leave it at that? And can we all agree that name calling is unproductive to the discussion at hand... which is how co-op boards deal with questions regarding noise, pets, etc.?

Thank you.

Agreed,its not the child,or dog rather the way they were raised or trained.

Amen

Which is getting away from the subject of having dogs use the service elevator. That hardly seems like the apocalyptic doom that crazy dog-owners made it out to be. One told the press that he would retaliate by buying three pit bulls!

All because a board trying to balance the concerns of dog-owners and non-dog-owners tried responsibly to split the difference.

Were there any dog-owners willing to compromise? To say, "Sure, the service elevator, why not? I've got a dog, it can snap at people unpredictably, it can intimidate other people in a small elevator" -- which is the intent of the pit bull guy, who clearly has emasculation issues. But no -- wah! wah! wah! Those cry-babies wanted it all their way or no way.

And the original point of this discussion had nothing to do with kids -- they only came up as a defensive false-dichotomy when dog-owners couldn't justify themselves except to vilify children. One only does that when one can't justify themselves on their own merits.

The original point of this discussion is whether dog owners should use the service elevator for their pets.

This discussion also began with a presumed dog-owner posting a gloating message that, in violation of copyright, contained an entire Daily News story.

The dog-owners on this forum (and to the screaming lady with the disability, may I point out no one here is discussing service animals, only pets) are too unreasonable to compromise and take the service elevator -- a compromise between squeezing their unpredictable animals into an elevator, intimidating and inconveniencing other riders, on one hand, and a no-pets policy on the other.

The fact that they reject a compromise designed for the good of the whole tells me they're fanatics. I've seen virtually nothing in their comments to indicate otherwise. And uncompromising fanatics are dangerous ... at the very least, they're bad neighbors.

I think it's time to drop this thread, eh?

And maybe the hyperbole, too.

I RESPONDED IN ANGER TO THE "DOG RULES" POSTER who called dog owener SELFISH but living with a disability for over 25 years that has gotten progressively worse in the last 8 years I have seen the GOOD & BAD SIDE of people when it comes to people with disabilities. "FAT" has become the new handicapped with ALMOST EVERY OVERWEIGHT PERSON possesing a handicapped parking permit & people with disabilities instead of being seen as someone that CAN function fairly equally in society with just a little help is instead seen as someone looking for a free ride. Well I would trade my motorized wheelchair for that fancy sports bike I use to ride cross country in a heart beat. I would gladly park down the block from Walmart & walk IF I COULD. I have MANY LIMITATIONS but if people could be JUST A LITTLE MORE CONSIDERATE & THINK before THEY ACT, THINK before they park in handicapped parking to "run into the supermarket" THINK before they CRITICIZE someone for being SLOW either in MOBILITY or THINKING, THINK before they criticize someone that LEGITIMATELY NEEDS A DOG to FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD IT IS NOT DOG OWNERS THAT ARE SELFISH BUT MANY, MANY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN AMONGST US THAT ARE BOTH SELFISH & INCONSIDERATE.

Do any of you realize that one day YOU COULD WAKE UP WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS or have a STROKE or ANUERYSM that changes you from the HEALTHY PERSON THAT ENJOYS A 3 MILE JOG in the morning to someone that NEEDS to rely on others just to get dressed or get out of bed. ALL I AM ASKING IS THINK.

It is a SAD STATE our world is in when POLICE OFFICERS CAN ABUSE THE DISABLED FOR HAVING A SERVICE DOG IN SOCIAL SERVICES because they are IGNORANT OF THE LAW & CONDO, COOP & BUILDING OWNERS that MUST ABIDE BY STRICT LAW OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS & MODIFCATIONS (of which a Service Dog is one of them) VERBAL ABUSES or TRIES TO SKIRT THE LAW. I am a DISABILITY/ SERVICE DOG ADVOCATE in the process of forming a non profit that will RAISE AWARENESS OF SERVICE DOGS PARTICULARLY SMALL SERVICE DOGS. My goal is to make it MANDATORY that BEFORE you can OWN, MANAGE or OPERATE a CONDO, COOP, APARTMENT or ANY BUSINESS THAT YOU BE REQUIRED BY LAW to learn about the FAIR HOUSING ACT, THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT & THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT which covers NOT JUST the disabled but makes it ILLEGAL to DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANYONE WHO IS DIFFERENT whether because of the color of their skin, race, disability or sexual orientation.

THERE NEEDS TO BE LESS CRITICISM & IGNORANCE ON THIS BOARD & MORE EDUCATION.

Thank you for your enlightening postings on this matter, Peggy. Hopefully they will provide boards and owners alike to reconsider the way they regard service pets and accommodating people with disabilities.

So much of the recent posts have turned into a DOGS vs. HUMAN CHILDREN debate. I have NO HUMAN CHILDREN - BY CHOICE. My Service Dog Esperanza is like my child. She goes everywhere with me, she detects changes in my diabetes, guides me away from danger so I do not fall, gets help for me when I do fall, she is ALWAYS by my side & NEVER COMPLAINS. We each wear a tag (the 2 halve kind) that says "BEST FRIENDS" on the back it reads "TOGETHER IN HEART & PAW ESPY & MOM".

As I have pointed out to MANY, MANY, MANY PEOPLE, Esperanza has been to the FINEST RESTAURANTS, CONCERTS, MOVIE THEATERS, BOAT TRIPS, MALLS, etc. & even here at the CONDO while I have witnessed parents have to REMOVE their HUMAN CHILDREN for misbehaving & causing a ruckus or they have had to stop their activities to discipline a human child I HAVE NEVER HAD TO VOLUNATRILY REMOVE Esperanza from ANYWHERE for misbehaving even when she was a tiny pup in training & while some people IGNORANT OF THE LAW asked me to REMOVE Esperanza I HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED TO REMOVE Esperanza from ANYWHERE because of her behavior (or ANY OTHER REASON for that matter).

Esperanza can be a 1/2 a mile away running in a field playing & I call out "Espy come get in the van" she will appear out of nowhere, jump in the passenger seat floor of the van & wait patiently while I pick her up & strap her in her car seat. Once she is in the car seat she lies down & DOES NOT move until we reach our destination. It DOES NOT matter whether that destination is 10 minutes away or 3 hours away SHE LIES QUIETLY IN HER SEAT. How many children sit in their car seats for that long without moving or making a noise?

Today I was in Walmart using one of their motor carts. I suffered a severe muscle spasm in my right hand. I was in so much pain. Espy sat on my lap watching me closing & every so often she would gently lick my sore hand just for a second - trying to make it better.

With all of this said Why is it that some condo managers & boards (like mine) put such SEVERE RESTRICTIONS that SEVERELY LIMIT MY QUALITY OF LIFE yet EVERYONE ELSE in all the places mentioned above as well as a few hospitals, funeral homes etc. can have no problem abiding by THE LAW & letting us participate fully?

I want 1 person that can say (truthfully) that they have or no of a HUMAN CHILD that is as well behaved as Esperanza?

I tell people "the more people I meet, the more I love my dog".

You are lucky to have such a wonderful companion. It's hard for some people to understand the ties that bind.

When young children and dogs cry and crap all over the place. Other than that they is no comparison. Try telling your dog to do his homework, stop listening to Eminem, and to go out and play more often. Can we now move on.

The dog whisperer.

A reasonable accommodation is some exception or change that a housing provider makes to rules, policies, services, or regulations that will assist a resident or applicant with a disability in taking advantage of a housing program and/or dwelling. A reasonable modification is an alteration to the physical premises allowing a person with a disability to overcome obstacles that interfere with his/her use of the dwelling and/or common areas. The accommodation and/or modification must be necessary for the individual with the disability to enjoy and/or fully use services offered to other residents and/or the individual dwelling unit.

Reasonable accommodations can include but are not limited to:

��A change in the rules or policies or how a housing provider does things that would make it easier for you to live in the dwelling;

��Permitting a seeing eye dog for a household in a community where pets are not allowed, or not charging a deposit for a service animal though the housing provider charges deposits for pets;

��Permitting an outside agency to assist a disabled resident to meet the terms of the lease;

��Permitting a live-in Personal Care Attendant to live with a disabled resident who might need 24 hour assistance; or

��A change in the way a housing provider communicates with or gives information, such as increasing the font size of typed documents to a person with a visual impairment or providing reminders of rent due for someone with a mental disability who needs reminders.

Under the Fair Housing Act provisions, a person may keep an assistance animal as a reasonable accommodation if:

(1) the person has a disability, as defined by the Fair Housing Act,

(2) the animal is needed to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and

(3) the person who requests the reasonable accommodation demonstrates that there is a relationship between the disability and the assistance that the animal provides

Service animal vs. companion animal vs. comfort animal:
A companion animal and/or comfort animal is a service animal. If there is verification of the disability and the need for the reasonable accommodation that is represented to be the presence of that animal in order for the person with the disability to enjoy equal opportunity, the companion/comfort animal is considered a service animal.

Requiring a service animal have specialized training and the tenant to submit verification of training:
A service animal does not have to receive specialized training in order to be considered a service animal. A service animal need only exhibit the ability to serve the person with the disability as is required for that person’s needs.

Under the Fair Housing Act, a person may not be denied an assistance animal because the animal lacks specialized training or does not perform tasks. Keep in mind that the animal’s owner is obligated to prevent the animal from threatening the health or safety of others and is responsible for the animal’s care and maintenance.
Under the Fair Housing Act, a person may not be denied an assistance animal because the animal lacks specialized training or does not perform tasks.

Keep in mind that the animal’s owner is obligated to prevent the animal from threatening the health or safety of others and is responsible for the animal’s care and maintenance.

Reasonable modifications can include, but are not limited to:
��A structural change or repair in your apartment or another part of the apartment complex that would make it easier for you to live in the dwelling; or

��Altering your apartment so that the unit can be accessed and used by a person in a wheelchair.

Tenants who may have visitors with disabilities:
A housing provider cannot deny the right of a tenant whose visitor/s may have disabilities from bringing his/her service animal when visiting the tenant on-site.

In 2009, of the 10,247 complaints filed with HUD and state and local fair housing agencies nationwide, about 44 percent alleged disability discrimination. Of those, about half, or 22 percent of all complaints filed nationally, alleged housing providers “failed to make a reasonable accommodation” in rules, policies or procedures necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing. A large portion of these complaints alleged a housing provider denied someone’s request to have an assistance animal in their housing

Good article, however, you may have left an incorrect impression regarding renvations to an apartment. The tenant pays for the renovations and must bring the unit back to its original condition when vacating. There may be special programs in New York City or elsewhere, but the
ADA is quite clear on this point. Also, while landlords are required to make "reasonale" accomodations, the key word is reasonable. Example, a landlord could not be expected to install a wheelchair ramp if it encroaches on a sidewalk. They would not have to install an elevator if the cost based on profit generated would be prohibitive. I write this merely to prevent the public from demanding accomodations that they may not be entitled to.

I guess non dog owners just don't get the fact that kids are so much less well behaved than most dogs and there are more unqualified parents than dog owners. Gee, kids in the elevator crying, throwing cheerios around, having tantrums. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

My doormat says "Dogs Welcome Children Must be on Leashes"

Children aren't straining at the leash trying to nip at you, they don't crap on the sidewalk in front of the building, they don't bark for literally hours while their owner is away at work.

And the fact that you can even compare dogs to human beings -- who will grow up to be our doctors, teachers, cops, etc. and, y'know, propagate the species -- is just remarkable. That sense of disproportion is just amazing.

They will also grow up to be our drug addicts and murderers. You give kids and their parents way too much credit.

you don't know the kids in my building!

lighten up

I have done several.. Spend a little more and ensure it is done right as not to have EPA and other Agency issues.

I have used Eastman Boiler & Tank @ 718-378-3000 with great success.

Dual Fuel Boiler?

Is it under a sidewalk vault or inside the building? You may want to redo the actual room or housing area while it is empty.

~AR

Don't use coast line. The broke our water main when removing the tank, which caused a major headache for us.

Have you thought about switching to Natural Gas? We had 22 oil burners. With the exception of removing the tanks, National Grid paid to install the pipes and Natural Gas Burners. For our 150 unit co-op we are currently saving over $90,000 a year by switching to Natural Gas. Plus we save on maintenance, since the oil burners were old and break often. 3 years maintenance free on the gas burners.

Chances are, based on an apples to apples comparison of 2010 fuel costs, if you burned Natural Gas in 2010 instead of Oil you spent at least 25% less on fuel...certainly true if you purchased gas from a marketer instead of Grid.

If you are found to be "service adequate" by Grid they will consider upgrading your capacity at no charge. If your demand permits a Firm gas rate you could apply through NYSERDA's Multifamily performance program for significant financial assitance to possibly fund other energy projects.

You would have to decommission existing oil tank...yet the savings are well worth it. Converting to gas is the smartest strategic investment a building can make...unless you can find a stock that will return at least 50 to 75% of initial investment in less than 12 monthsthen your best investment is a gas conversion.

There is a state guidance of so many sq feet per person in what they call a bedroom or sleeping area (a living room counts towards the total). Call your local housing dept for guidance.

I believe it is 70sq ft. per person.

If I were your manager and this came up, i would advise you to only say in the minutes that "Shareholder of unit xx was granted permissionvto harbor a pet based on the medical information provided to the Board."

In the minutes you don't have to go into detail of what the actual cause was. You have that on record in the file and you could always defend your decision to any future shareholders inquiring/challenging. That statement also is not outing any personal issues.

You say you are a no pet building. Was that always the case? If so, the tenant/shareholder knew about this and should not have been accepted into the building. In fact, should not have applied at all. However, if this is a new policy, I agree with Mark on how to enter it into the minutes IF you are going to allow the pet. Should anyone ask for specifics, all you have to say is it is confidential. The end.

Birds usually don't count as well as hamsters, etc. probably because they are kept in cages. Cats do count so if you allow cats you have to allow dogs (you can specify size).

Good luck!

My co-op insists that buyers sign a no pet policy and yet, miracuously they appear. If a dog is living in the building for 90 days, openly and notoriously, they must be allowed to remain. If a resident can prove a medical or physcological need, they will be granted the right to a "service animal". It is important for employees of the building to diligently report animals so that the 90 days do not run out. If a buyer wants a pet, rules or not, many will do everything possible to have one, so the question of another writer, why do they seek out the apartment, "because they want to and will do anything possible to keep one" is the simple answer.

The sponsor knew of the dog for many years, but did nothing, but because our shareholders are making a fuss (many want dogs), we have alerted the sponsor that this tenant is in violation of house rules and lease. We have in turn been warned by counsel that co=op and sponsor could face a lawsuit for not accomodating a person with a disability and his dog, and there is nothing can be done since dog has been here for years. Any suggestions how to resolve? We also fear threats of lawsuits from shareholders who want dogs and can get letters saying they need one.

again, once that 90 days passes, pets will usually be allowed to stay if the case goes to court. If there are rules prohibiting pets then there has to be vigilant oversight for new ones.
you can incorporate rules for pet behavior which would have to be followed by all. limit on size, new ones only, where they can be walked, passage through lobbies and in elevators,etc. if you are a condo, have fines in place. good luck

So, you have informed the owner of the no pet rule, but refused to give up the cute, cuddly puppy. What can you do now?

It's me again. I have a thought. Since the no pet house rule is essentially useless, do you think it would be sound to assess additional maintenance for pet harbor (not as a penalty; people tend to scoff at the word "penalty")? It's pet rent.

turn it over to the attorneu and start a lawsuit. My co op is in the process of suing 8 dog oners. Too bad the dogs weren't discvered earlier, now the lawyers will be the big winners.

Having managed many properties in Manhattan my experience has been that while boards may have the interest of the Coop at heart when it comes to pets and rules they back down and shy away when a shareholder complains. Yes,they have no balls. The board requested the staff to snitch on who had a dog and was violation house rules. End result staff were the bad ones and the board smelt like roses.

MRM.

Gee, my coop board doesn't back down on anything!

In Jan due to advancing Multiple Sclerosis I had to move in with my mom. Her condo had a NO PETS rule but there WERE a FEW dogs living here that were "emotional support animals". BEFORE I moved I presented my dogs papers to prove that she was a SERVICE DOG (diabetic alert & mobility). Shortly thereafter the condo APPROVED my keeping the dog but AFTER I moved in they wanted me to sign a "CONTRACT" that I would take my dog OFF THE PROPERTY (it is a gated community) to do her business, NOT take her in or thru the lobby ESSENTIALLY she could go to & from my van & from the Condo OFF THE PROPERTY. I WOULD NOT SIGN THE CONTRACT. I am a Disability/ Service Dog Advocate. Federal Law states that my dog as a LEGITIMATE SERVICE DOG can go in ALL AREAS OF PUBLIC ACCESS. I met with the building manager that is as useful as a 3 legged donkey. She was UNRELENTING and PROMISES she did make to me she NEVER FOLLOWED THRU.

I IGNORED the CONTRACT and IGNORED the "RULES" as far as where my dog could go because no matter what FEDERAL LAW IS THE LAW NOT THE CONDO LAWS. I was stymied in many ways because my mom (the condo owner) FORBID ME to advocate for my rights either in regard to accessibility (this condo sucks as far as accessibility) or my Service Dog rights.

For MONTHS things went ok in the above manner. Then dogs began APPEARING in droves, it seemed every other tenant has a dog. Then this woman accross the hall from me got a cat which she let outside to wonder around & also allowed to wander the halls. I don't mind cats except this thing was brazen & kept going after my dog. Anyway, suddenly the non-pet owners SENT LETTERS, MADE PHONE CALLS - WENT APE about there being TOO MANY DOGS HERE. Note most of these dogs are small lap dogs; many are puppies. While my Service Dog is only 12 pounds she is TRAINED most of the other dogs here ARE NOT TRAINED (neither are their owners but that is another story).

A month ago I got a nasty letter from the building manager that there were NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS about my walking the dog on the condo grounds. The complaints no doubt stemed from my taking my Service Dog to the mail room, laundry room, along a walk path. Even when on the walk path the dog had been taken OUTSIDE THE CONDO grounds to do her "business" first. These "Emotional support" dogs/ cats/ puppies ARE NOT Service Dogs & NOT protected by Federal Law but I AM BEING HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS THAT THEY ARE.

Finally I went against my mom's RULES & sent a letter to the building manager telling her that I WOULD NOT sign the contract because it was LEGALLY, ETHICALLY & MORALLY WRONG I also made a FORMAL REQUEST for REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS. I am waiting now to have a meeting with her.

BEFORE you CONDEMN ALL DOGS check to see which dogs have LEGITIMATE SERVICE DOG JOB & HENCE are PROTECTED by Federal law & which are PETS. Therapy dogs, emotional support dogs, pets DO NOT have the same FEDERAL PROTECTION as LEGITIMATE SERVICE DOGS. But CONDEMNING someone for OWNING A SERVICE DOG COULD set you up for a HEFTY LAW SUIT.

Ask the owner - is the dog necessary to help you with a medical or psychiatric condition?
AND what tasks is the dog trained to do?

The answers LEGALLY can be vague because NO ONE BY LAW NEEDS TO REVEAL THE EXACT NATURE OF THEIR MEDICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't seen your Proprietary Lease for myself, but the Prop Lease usually has a provision for access within a reasonable amount of time for the Lessor or a representative thereof. I haven't come across a Prop Lease that exempts the Sponsor or Holder from this requirement (not as you would see an exemption from the Sponsor getting permission for an alteration approval, sale approval, apartment used as an office, etc.)

Use that paragraph if you need to stir the boat to get into the apartment. Even more so if the apartment(s) in question are causing issues with those to the sides or below.

Hi Lauren,

First off, is this a Cooperative? In the Proprietary Lease, if it is, are the windows the responsibility of the building to maintain or are the individual Shareholders responsible for their upkeep and replacement?

If the building is responsible, it is pretty easy to initiate a complete window replacement program once a contractor has been approved for the work. I think more specifics are needed.

Also, DEP does a free water inspection of residential buildings that will pinpoint each unit where there is water loss / leaks, etc. That might be useful for you to organize.

thank you both for the help!

Hi Lauren! HabitatReporter here with Bram Fierstein of Gramatan Mangagement to offer you his expert opinion.

"You have to look in your offering plan to determine if the building has responsibility for the windows or not. In most co-ops the windows are the co-op's responsibility but on occasion this is not the case. If they truly are the owner's responsibility then I would suggest trying to get a contractor to give you a discount if you bring them in as the recommended vendor. Write those who have not changed their windows saying the Board is looking for ways to be environmentally conscientious and to save on expenses. Explain the Board has found a window vendor that will give a discount. You might want to give a further incentive by offering to finance the cost of the installation over a few months.

I know of no co-op where the toilets don't belong to the shareholders. Accordingly, I would try to use the same suggestions as were made for encouraging shareholders to change their windows. In both cases try to be very specific as possible with regard to the potential savings the co-op would receive if the changes were made."

You should consult your coop attorney and not rely on your managing agent only.
It is unusual to have this kind of waiver in a property lease.
The purpose of a property lease is, among other things, to protect the interests of the buildings structure.
As a corporation, you should be able to seek "reasonable" damages from a shareholders due to negligence.

Sounds as though insurers are involved.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Mar/1/128637.html

Check with your co-op's insurer.

Here's the clause as it appears in our Proprietary Lease and probably in many others:

"4(d). Waiver of Subrogation: The Lessor agrees to use its best efforts to obtain a provision in all insurance policies carried by it waiving the right of subrogation against the Lessee; and, to the extent that any loss or damage is covered by the Lessor by any insurance policies which contain such waiver of subrogation, the Lessor releases the Lessee from any liability with respect to such loss or damage."

I'm not a lawyer -- and you should definitely consult yours -- but here are a couple of comments.

First, note that this is only a "best efforts" clause. Your coop's insurance policy may not actually include a waiver of subrogation. If it does, it means that the insurance company has agreed not to go after the offending shareholder to recover money paid to the coop to settle a claim. This is true even if the shareholder's negligence caused the damage: see Indian Harbor Insurance v. Dorit Baxter Skin Care, http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-summary-judgment/14662665-1.html

Furthermore, the clause says the coop releases the shareholder from liability to the extent that the loss or damage is covered by such an insurance policy. Presumably, this means that the coop *can* go after the shareholder for any damages not covered by the insurance. But again, I'm not a lawyer, so let us know what your attorney says about this.

HabitatReporter here with an opinion from Edward T. Braverman, Esq., of Braverman & Associates , P.C.:

"The Managing Agent who has denied coverage for a water leak emanating from the negligent maintenance of a toilet is incorrect in denying repairs based upon a claim of “Waiver of Subrogation”. Subrogation is the legal contractual concept generally applied to insurance carriers. It is the insurance company’s ability to make claim against the party causing the damage after the insurer makes payment of the funds necessary to correct the damage. Waiver of subrogation is a contractual provision where the insurance carrier agrees that after payment it will not seek to recover the money it paid from the negligent party. Many Proprietary Leases do contain provisions mandating that both the Co-op’s insurance policy and a Shareholder’s policy must contain such a waiver. However, the concept requires that the carrier has initially paid the full amount of the damages to the person who made the repair. Obviously, in the instance presented the doctrine would apply only if the writer had been paid the full amount of the damages by his insurance carrier. This is obviously not the case, and the Managing Agent has misinterpreted the meaning of the Proprietary Lease provision which would prohibit the writer from being paid. Had the writer been paid, the principal would be applicable because it would prevent the writer from receiving a double recovery (both from his insurance company and from the negligent party or that party responsible to make the repair)."