You can file in either one according to the results you want, monetarily or otherwise, for a breach you can also file in Supreme Court.

never heard of them, but try Eisenstein Realty ask for harry, they are really good.

Stay away from All Area. We had them for two years and they never paid our payroll taxes. We discovered this when IRS sent us the bill

Feel free to give us a call too! (or e-mail - mblevine@ebmg.com)

Our experience was horrible - didn't pay property taxes on time and didn't pay withholding taxes and we got stuck with the bill

As a resident of a coop and having to deal with Allarea, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THEM. Unprofessional, office staff not qualified, property manager had no idea about plumbing, electrical wires...let's say, he was no sparky. Tsao the president doesn't return phone calls and has no idea what his staff is doing.

Try contacting Matthew Adam Properties, Inc., Ira Meiter (212) 699-8900 They are excellent in property management.

Mike MacGowan, Resident Manager?

I always see you promoting Matthew Adams, is that the firm you work for?

No I work for the Co-op, Matthew Adam Properties, Inc. manage the building. They are a very good company.

We had take to court,plus they lied about certain facts,and kept our money we putting to special fund upkeep of the building. Parsons Plaza Condo.

We had take to court,plus they lied about certain facts,and kept our money we putting to special fund upkeep of the building. Parsons Plaza Condo.

You should look into Metropolitan Pacific Properties (www.metpacproperties.com). We would be happy to be of service.

Wow, so a bunch of mgmt companies are comenting on All Area. Nice. Very credible.

If you follow the thread the initial question was does anyone know of All area property mgt, so I am guessing most comments are in response to the question, are you with me. Something tells me you work for them.

MRM.

There is no credibility in this business. You have a bunch of mgmt companies writing lies about us. Yes, I am one of the owners at All Area. I would never do 1% of what is going on here.

Thanks everyone for showing your true colors.

And yes, one of my employees told me about this thread. Technically, this is for Board Members only.

Actually, anyone can comment on this board. It's an open-Internet site. Apartment buyers and sellers are on here all the time. I do sympathize if untrue things are being said, but you can trace identities pretty well through the IP numbers that come up on each top item. Do a Google search to find out how.

Thank You LeonardC. I know what you have mentioned. I do IT only, so I know all the tricks. I also know that most Cable, FIOS and DSL Subsribers on home plans use DHCP IP's and it would be very hard to track, so this would be very difficult. Our company uses a Static NAT'd IP so of course my comment can be traced back to me. But, I have nothing to hide.

My Recommendation would be not to allow this kind of talk, but I understand what Habitat is trying to do here. I know that an open forum like this can have its positives and negatives.

I was actually on this site yesterday, because we have not advertised with Habitat in over 10 years because our business grows via word of mouth and referals and not so much with advertising. Its just been that way lately.

I was just looking around and searched All Area to see how we come up in the Habitat. As I was doing that, a employee walked into my office and showed me a thread they saw weeks ago. Either way, I do hope people see through this. We have tripled in business since 2005 with no advertising whats so ever.

I do believe though that some advertising could be helpfull.

I don't know about management companies but I live in a coop that All Area managed and they did not pay our total employee withholding taxes for a long time, and the IRS charged us - they paid bills very late including our RE taxes which cost us over $6,000 in interest, and of course other bills late and otherwise were very bad managers - to get anything done I would have to call 311

If anyone is interested, there have been three responses to this thread in 2013. All of them were unsolicited replies to messages posted in 2010 and all of them were very uncomplimentary to All Area Property Management.

I will leave the drawing of any conclusions or conspiracy theories as an exercise for the reader... ;-)

In the real world board members are supposed to lead example (LOL). While it is easy to say sell and get the hell out of there it would serve no purpose. You have to ask yourself is it worth taking this person on?, Have others complained?

MRM

I think you should handle it just like you would if it were another shareholder, have mangement send a letter and then wait for them to respond to the letter. It don't matter if he/she is on the board or not.

Good Luck.

KITTY LITTER HAS BEEN KNOWN TO BE USED TO TRY AND COVER ODOR FROM DEAD BODY(ANIMAL/HUMAN). CONTACT BOARD OF HEALTH AND POLICE FOR IMMEDIATE RESULTS.
WORKED IN OUR BUILDING. SOURCE OF ODOR WAS DEAD CAT.

I agree with Mike. Have mgmt send your BM a letter. Also check your Proprietay Lease. If the BM doesn't reply or won't let mgmt inspect the apt, it's very likely that your Lease allows entry without a SH's permission if unsanitary conditions are strongly suspected or known to exist.

Our Lease even says if apt windows are excessively dirty and the SH won't clean them, the coop has the right to go in and have them cleaned. Pot, beer, etc. are a SH's private business, but bad pet and garbage odors from an apt are something else.

Some people aren't very clean and don't throw out garbage, soiled cat litter, etc. as often as they should. But as another poster said, there could be a more serious problem in your BM's apt. I wouldn't waste time checking this out.

offensive smells like garbage and kitty litter are one thing.
however if you have a personal issue against pot, well that is his own business, the same as someone having a beer of cocktail.
As the others have said , if it is that bad a source of offensive odor , everyone should man up and write the letter with your names. If the odor of mj was really that strong you might ask him to get a fan to blow sick it out the window and ask the super to put added draft control material on the bottom of the door or add sealer to the saddle if there is one.
i wouldn't put pot smell in the same category of rotten garbage and kitty litter which is a health/ vermin issue for the other residents.

Regarding your response, I feel that there is a great difference between someone smoking pot and someone having a beer. Having managed many properties, I have received complaints regarding "pot odor" on particular hallways. Nobody has ever called me to say that Mr. Jones is drinking a budweiser in his apartment. Simply put, if I have a beer at night nobody knows. If I smoke pot the odour/smell, more than likely will be detected and someone will complain.

MRM

Um, the building shouldn't have to put up with disgusting drug addicts. The smell (skunk weed) smells like the name and the pot smoker should make adjustments to his addiction. The managment has to send a letter siting Warrant of Habitability and that they are in default.
Just because some think it's o.k., look the other way or think it's someone elses problem, it's not. Get tough man!!! Stand up for your rights.

Hi everyone! HabitatReporter here again, this time with a response from Elliot Meisel of the law firm of Brill & Meisel. He says,

"The first issue is whether the building in question is a co-op or a condo. Each has a very different way of dealing with such situations.

The most important issue here is that board members should be above reproach. They should not be guilty of anything that other shareholders should not be guilty of. It is the responsibility of the board to hold its members to a higher standard. The other board members can try to persuade the problematic board member of that responsibility. Failing that, he or she can be removed from the board either with or without cause by the other boardmembers or the shareholders, depending on the by-laws of the building.

If the building is a co-op, the Board should first check the proprietary lease as the offending board member can be found in default and afforded the chance to comply or be evicted. In a condo, there is no landlord/tenant relationship, and the by-laws are poor at enforcing non-monetary issues, but in addition to having the board member removed from the board the condo can go to court to seek an injunction against the offending conduct, but that is difficult, will take a long time and be expensive.

Calling the Board of Health is a possibility but is likely to result in the building receiving a violation, not the individual unit-owner, leaving the building, rather than the board member, with the responsiblity for rectifying the situation though the owner may be backcharged for the fine..

When litigating quality of life issues, such as noise, odors or vermin, several things are important. Have more than one complainant; have the complaints in writing, have them documented over a period of time and have the complainants willing to go to court to testify as the courts will respect a personal appearance over signed affidavits and letters. "

Hope this helps!

I worked with El Tech numerous times and I think they're excellent. I managed a 6 story building on the Upper West Side where the elevator was 50 years old and they maintained it and when it came time to modernize it, they won the bid and came in a week ahead of schedule. They're back-office is very good and easy to deal with as well.

our original sponsor is still the managing agent, i always wondered how common this is.
27 year conversion here.
i see it as a no lose gravy train for the sponsor/managing company
if they still have a lot of units for the first 10/20 years after conversion, they don't do the required maintainance, because they want their cost kept down. By the time the problem is evident, the sponsor doesn't own anything, and are just collecting managing fee's, and now they are dealing with big $$ projects which can be padded very easily. The owners are tagged with assessments.
our roof had to be encapsulated doors replaced, a lot of work that would have been avoided with normal maintenance. Now it is a big job, since no agent did roof inspections in 27 years

you gotta switch agents asap!!

Two words: Jennifer Realty. Google it.

Hello David,
You are part of the solution not the problem so hang-in there. Here are some suggestions:
1) Get a lawyer
2) Make sure you have personal liability insurance.
3) You may need to set-up a shadow Board.
4) You have got to find the leverage to unhinge them. I would suggest finding a way to alter the flow of funds.
Just some thoughts...

Consult the corp attorny, call the Attorny General's office and inquiry about your rights. But be prepared for push back.

My engineers charge about 250/195 and typically would provide a flate rate quote on the report and only the construction project would incur the hourly rate.

Best
~AR

Some co-ops do not permit write-in candidates. Our co-op closes nominations 30 days prior to the annual meeting. Their names, e.g.: incumbents and new candidates, are then posted for all to see. By rule definition, there are no nominations from the floor. Likewise, there are no write-ins permitted on the proxy.

Assume there are six positions open for election and there are nine candidates.

If a shareholder has 400 shares, the shareholder may vote hls/her shares for one to six candidates. In this case, based on the forgoing, the shareholder may vote for just one candidate, two candidates, three candidates, four candidates, five candidates or six candidates, or none.

By placing an [X] on the ballot adjacent to a candidate, the counters will take the 400 shares and add the shares so voted to the candidate identified and so forth.

One may not vote 600 for one candidate and 200 for another. The “amount” of shares voted is based on the shares held by the owner(s) of the unit.

If one votes for more than six, the ballot is invalidated.

If one votes for none the candidates, the 400 counts as part of the quorum requirement, but not the election.

So when all the votes/shares are tabulated, the counters list those that garnered votes in descending order, such that the top six vote/share recipients are the winners.

If one desires, one may give instructions to a proxy to submit the ballot on behalf of the shareholder. In our case, individuals can be identified by one or more shareholders as their proxy.

The shareholder may give explicit directions to the proxy as to the shares to be cast and the candidates or the shareholders can allow the proxy complete freedom.

In our co-op, the shareholder or the proxy can submit the ballot in advance of the annual meeting or at the annual meeting until voting is closed.

i seem to follow what you're saying, but thanks for the response
with the example where 600 and 200 could not be voted is that because you only have 600 shares=600 votes, not 800..

ok let say i was in your building and i had 600 shares. there are 6 positions open and 9 people running.
could i vote all 600 for one candidate, nothing for the other 5 ? or could i vote 100 for one each of the 6 candidate which = my total of 600.
could i vote 300 and 300 for two candidates to equal my 600 shares/votes?
if i had 400 shares and if the proxy is filled with an X next to 4 candidates slots listed on the proxy, running unopposed is that invalid, or if they had 400 shares, each candidate would get 100 votes for a total of their 400 shares.
the same with ballot voting in you have 400 shares and put a X next to each of the 4 candidates you wanted, each would be counted as 100 votes,

If you have 600 shares, you may only vote the 600 shares in their entirety for one or more candidates up to the limit of open positions.

Or, you may also elect to vote for no one.

In the tabulations, if you vote for five open slots, your 600 shares are voted and added for each.

If you are the only one who votes, each of the five, for whom you voted, will each have 600 votes. One share = one vote, but a shareholder, per most rules, cannot allocate more or less than the total 600 shares owned to each candidate.

As different units have different share counts, typically, others can vote their total number of shares according to their preference of conscience.

Each candidate is independent of any other candidate regardless of slate or affiliation.

i still am ahving a hard time gripping this , since it seems to have been changed in our building in the last couple years, and i know we didn't any special meeting to change the bylaws.
one of the pluses of cumulative voting was to get in a minority candidate, the way this is sounding , that doesn't seem possible.
4 positions for relection, lets stick to the 600 shares on this one. we have always been able to decide to run the night of the meeting.
so if a write in decided to run, and a good percentage of the shareholders, voted for the write in as one of the slots, 600 shares for the write in, it sounds like they would still have to vote for 3 more people , giving each of them 600 shares. so the shareholder with 600 shares would vote their 600 for 4 candidates, but since a write in has been added and 4 are running unopposed for reelection, for 4 slots, would the write in have a chance ? seems the write in would have a better chance if the shareholders only voted for that one person, thereby not giving any votes to the people you do not want,.
i know in 1998 the bcl was changed for co-ops to vote standardized voting, however i didn't think that would affect or take precedence over a co-op formed in 1983, whose by-laws state, one vote per share whereas you would have 600 votes, not 2400.
isn't that standardized voting?
i know there are 2 types of voting, one cumulative , which is better to get a new person in, and i think the other is called standardized, which is after 1998.
i am trying to make sure i understand the difference between cumulative and standardized, since i believe we should be voting cumulative.

There was three types of voting methods:

1- Straight or Direct vote:
One shareholder one vote ( one point per seat )
Hasn't been used much.

2- Standardized vote:
The Shareholder's vote for a candidate will give the number of shares owned to that candidate. You own 200 shares, you vote for candidate A and C, A gets a 200 "points" and C gets a 200 "points"

3- Cumulative vote:
The shareholder multiplies his shares by the number of seats in the board. Let's say that a board has seven seats.
The shareholder has 7x200=1400 "points" that he can assign the way he wants to the candidates he picked. 900 to candidate A and 500 to candidate C.
This method was designed to allow a "minority" shareholders to vote in a candidate to represent them.

i remember the word cumulative and straight being used to describe the voting for years. i never really grasped how it worked,but i do remember voting unequal number of shares for candidates, but it was 400 split , not 1600, i never voted by by proxy.
the last couple of years it seems to have switched , as in my first post, no splitting , must vote for the number of slots running. voting all your shares for each candidate.

however the by laws which i checked the night i wrote the OP, state one share = 1 vote, didn't see anything mentioned in there about cumulative or standardized, i need to go back and see if the terms straight or direct or on that paragraph.
i did see that the by-laws state One share equals one vote, that sounds like straight, building was converted in 1983, Westchester.
with straight voting can you split your shares, if you had 400 shares and 4 positions were open, vote all 400 for 1 candidate, or 200 and 200, and skip the other 2 candidates, or 100 for each. i remember doing that , i am also trying to think back over 20 years. which hurts/
i have a lot to look up by tomorrow night, i believe it could not have been changed unless there was a special meeting, with the same notice as a annual meeting for that exact purpose, which i know never happened.

To "escape from yonkers" - If, let's say, you have 400 shares:

With straight voting -- You can vote 400 shares for each board position. For ex, if your board has 5 positions, you can vote 400 shares for each of 5 candidates. But if you wish, you can vote 400 shares for just, say, 2 or 3 candidates if there are only 2 or 3 that you like and want to vote for. But each candidate you vote for (whether it's 2 or 5) each gets your full 400 shares.

With cumulative voting -- you have a grand total of 400 shares and you can give any part of them you want to however many candidates you want. For ex, you can give 200 shares to John, 100 shares to Mary, 50 shares to Phil, 25 shares to Cathy, and 25 shares to Frank. Or - you can give 200 shares to John and 200 shares to Mary. Or - you can give all 400 shares to John and none to anyone else.

There's another method of voting whereby 1 apartment = 1 vote (for each candidate), but that's not a common method in most coops.

Hope this clarifies the types of voting for you.

bp, thank you. That explains it the way i previous understood it for cumulative, which is the only voting i thought we had for 20 plus years

our by laws state
"at each meeting of shareholders present in person or by proxy shall be entitled to one vote for each share registered in his name at time of service of notice of such meeting"

i understand this to mean if i have 400 shares, i have 400 votes. i understand this to be cumulative.

the proxy notice we received sounds like straight voting,and they neglected to point out that you can also, only vote for one candidate out of 4 candidates. It sounds like you must vote for all 4 positions I am not sure if in this straight voting ,if a group of shareholders only votes for one 1 out of 4 candidates, lets say a last-minute write in,if it would help the write in candidate.
to clarify and not confuse the issue : this election has 4 seats open for reelection, election, with the 4 seeking re-election.
the board has, i believe 7 positions, and another problem i will address in another post, the officers are no longer listed in any material we receive, just the president, the others no longer have officer titles listed, whereas they always had titles listed in all material sent to shareholders.
secretary,treasury,

"each shareholder present in person or by proxy is entitled to vote each share registered in his or her name. The total number of shares per apartment may be voted for each candidate selected , but no more than four (4) candidates may be voted for. You may not divide your shares or accumulate your shares.

how about a voice vote/raising of hands to support, with no call for "nay" votes?

doesn't sound quite kosher, ya know... ?

What you discribe is NON-cumulative voting. We changed over a few years ago, and we were finally able to get a Board member off the Board who, with Cumulative voiting could count the percentages, and figure out exackly what he needed to get on the Board,and if he had any left over, he could bring his pals on.

Its very difficult to manipulate the votes with Non-cumulative voting. And the most popular (didnt say best) people are elected.

However, you may want to check the BYlaws, this may require a Shareholder vote. But, do stay with NON-cumulative.
VP

Our building recently had the somewhat of the same problem. You must look into your Certificate of Incorporation, that is the motherload of all including BCL and Bylaws. The Certificate should state how the voting process should be, if it is silent and does not specify then it is automatically Plaurality superseeds Cumulative, the one that holds the most votes get on board,the second to most also prevails et...il all members are chosen.