Michael Simons Interiors. He is absolutely brill.I will come back tomorrow with the contact info.

Robert Cane Architect PLLC - 212-769-9605
He did 2 of my buildings... very good (REAP Construction did the work on one and Larry Biddall on the other - both excellent)
Hali Weiss Design & AIA - cell:917-318-5511 - very very good - She is Higher end and good at managing the project as well.
Young Huh - Interior Design 212-595-3767 ... Working with her on a project now... nice designer, very efficient.

Best
~AR

How so? You do not mention how they were overbilled or underbilled. Please provide more explanations.

AdC

Apparently accountant has discovered the under and overbilling as shareholders were not paying the correct $ amount per share amount. This property has been a coop for over 40 years

If the dollar amount was incorrect, then all should be over, or under billed.. not a combination of each.
Everyone pays the same amount per share for maintenance.
If there is a combination of each, then the only way I can figure it to be is a misallocation of shares which indicates much bigger challenges than just maintenance payments being incorrect.
Maybe the accountant is in error?


~AR

I suggest you look for a new accountant and a new managing company.

Your situation is not the only one in co-ops. I don't know what is the difference--pennies or a couple of dollars per year or hundreds or thousands of dollars per year?

Sometimes, these situations happen when management companies apply an increase by way of maintenance paid per unit, i.e., 3% over a dollar amount in maintenance may result in variances. If you were to carry it over several years, the disparities may grow. Is this your case?

Many times one has to be practical and forget who paid less or who paid more and how long they resided, etc. I would cut bait and be done. What is the variance from the lowest paid to highest paid? Establish a new rate per share and have everyone pay the same amount going forward.

AdC

Board has no idea as to how over and underpayment of maintence occured. It seems that shareholders were charged different amounts per shares which went on for many, many years no one knows. Our new accountant, discovered the error. Now board has been advised to ignore, or back bill and credit shareholders for a period of 5 years as allowed by law. Reimbursement and credits range from $5.00 to $48. Therefore some have underpayment of over $2800. Some are speaking of legal recourse for these monies.

If this were my co-op, I'd hire an outside accountant to determine exactly what happened and when - determine what the over- and under-payments are - then have the board meet with Shareholders to discuss the situation, and to offer a solution of a 25-50% resolution: those who have credit would get 25-50% of that due, and those who owe would pay 25-50%. I'd also offer payment plans for amounts owed over $1000. Try to figure out what makes sense for the co-op as a whole financially, but also have some compassion for shareholders, who might be suddenly faced with an obligation that seems unfair, especially if they've been paying maintenance as billed - on time, and in full - each month.

The important thing is for everyone, including the board, to try to be reasonable at all times. There is no advantage in pointing fingers, getting the co-op entangled in expensive legal affairs, getting everyone in the building riled up, or other actions that would split your co-op like a too-ripe grape.... that will take years and a unified effort to heal (I know).

BTW - I think the board should also think seriously about 1) a new accountant; 2) a new managing agent.

Our new accountant was the person who discovered this issue. Board is considering accessing all to pay those who are due a credit. Thus all shareholders including those who are due a credit will be assessed to pay themselves. This does not seem quite fair.

That doesn't seem to be an equitable solution for anyone....

I believe that your tenants,housekeepers etc should first and foremost be educated as to sanitation laws/building requirements regarding disposal of garbage. Here are a few suggestions which have worked in the property I manage.

1. On each compactor area we have a NYC decal outlining the recycle laws

2. Send a memo to the shareholders reminding them of the recycle rules with a copy of the decal.

3. Be proactive and trouble shoot to find out who the violators are (the porter staff can best help you here) and send the unit owner a memo reminding them of the rules regarding recycling.

In many of the buildings they never changed the signs to compactor usage, they still have the incinerator signs up and the residents, housekeepers are not educated as to what to throw down the chute. Check the signage and maybe a building wide memo or if you have Buildinglink or Mybuilding.com you can post a message on the email to all residents.

I'm looking for as much information on compactors as I can get. Please email me if you have the time? I posted a request previously but it may have gone unnoticed. THANK YOU.

I can tell you all as a resident, that when I first moved to NYC 14 years ago, I put just about everything but the kitchen sink down the chute: glass, metal, and anything that I could stuff in there. (Not proud of this fact, mind you...)

I had no idea at that time that there was a personal risk to the building staff, nor did I know that it had the potential to cost the building money. Long story, but the point is, even reasonable people need education to understand the risk of harm, and the likelihood of damage.

We had many problems due to wrong things thrown in the compactor chute, costly repairs, and injuries to our super (one serious) due to broken glass.

1) The first thing you should do is make sure all your residents know proper disposal rules. Post the NYC recycling posters in every compactor room.

2) We also have a 1st floor trash area and wall signs are posted above each trash bin saying what each bin is for (metal/plastic/glass, loose paper only, magazines/catalogs, regular garbage, etc.) We also have a sign saying cardboard boxess must be flattened and taken to the 1st floor.

3) On the wall of the compactor room on each floor we also posted these 3 signs:

-- All recyclables must be taken to the 1st floor.

-- All trash must be in bags and tied tightly.

-- Do not throw wire hangers or clothing, blankets, towels or other "fabric" items in the chute.

These signs have helped a lot. Wire hangers twist and jam the chute, and "fabric" items get caught on the chute's concrete walls and jams build up on top of them, like things in a clogged drain.

We also enacted a rule/policy stating that:

a) Anyone known and proven to throw improper items down the chute or discard them impropely in the 1st floor trash area will be charged a $200 fine.

b) Anyone known and proven to throw improper items in the chute that requires compactor system repair or chute clearing will be charged for that service.

c) If the guilty party is a sublet tenant, the cost for any damage or clearing will be charged to the apt shareholder. The shareholder may if he chooses charge back any fines he incurs to the tenant and deduct it from the tenant's security deposit.

d) If extensive service is required to repair the compactor or chute because of improper disposal and the guilty person is not known, the cost of service will be charged equally to all shareholders.

We've been able to ID people who disposed of items improperly because the super or a board member saw them do it - or people threw dry cleaner hangers and plastic bags, boxes, etc. in the chute that had a delivery label/tag with the person's name on it.

We had two chute jams that damaged mechanical parts of the compactor system. The repairs cost $3,500 and $2,450. We didn't know who caused them so we charged all shareholders equally for them. It's made everyone more careful about their actions, and we've had no major problems since. We also haven't had any complaints from any shareholders about this rule/policy we enacted.

While I agree with most of your rules regarding recycling etc, I would not be very happy if a charge was applied to my monthly maintenance because someone else did not follow the rules and the compactor needed repairs like you stated.

Bob.

Bob - I understand why you wouldn't like paying for compactor repairs if someone else did the damage. But this, at least in our bldg, made everyone much more careful about what they throw out and how.

Charging all shareholders equally for repair costs if the guilty party isn't known eliminated our need for repairs to the extent we needed them which was often. It was a wake-up call to be more responsible and more considerate of fellow shareholders. If we don't charge everyone for repairs in this way, it's money out of operating funds that all shareholders contribute to anyway. They (apparently) realize if they are all careful about trash disposal it means less money overall out of their pockets.

This may not work in all bldgs but it has for us.

Thanks, the last items were very helpful!

This is a no win situation. In spite of numerous memoranda, signs, etc., residents do not seem to understand that their convenience may end up an inconvenience in excess costs, aggrevations, etc.

Obviously, residents need to take initiative to correct others when they see improper disposal. If names of residents appear in the impropoer compactor refuse, then go their apartments and embarrass them. This is the only way they may eventually understand!

AdC

AdC: If residents don't heed memos, signs, etc. on proper trash disposal, I very much doubt they'd correct neighbors if they see them throwing things away improperly. Most people aren't that forthright or don't want a hassle with a neighbor or being told to MYOB by a neighbor if they speak up.

Charging a fine to known offenders and billing the cost of major compactor repairs to a known offender (or to all SHs equally if the offender isn't known) has worked well for us. On the two occasions when we billed all SHs it came to $170 and $150 per apt. No one liked that at all and it woke everyone up. Some people also became conscious of their disposal habits because they were afraid someone would see them throwing something out improperly and tell everyone in the building.

One thing I forgot to mention. If someone doesn't flatten a large cardboard box when they leave it in the trash area, our super puts it back in front of their door. It doesn't stay there long and shows up flattened in the trash area! Most times it doesn't matter if people tear labels off boxes because all boxes from Fed Ex, UPS, etc. are given to our super and he puts apt #s on the boxes in black marker. You can't tear that off!

I would think so, being that the board would seek the advice from the building counsel, he as a board memeber also would have access to this. Check your bylaws, in all the coops/condos, I've worked in I always suggested that the board get to know the bylaws inside and out,

Our board president's son owns a construction company that is frequently used at our building. Any thoughts??

Bright-line conflict of interest.

My comment a moment ago refers to the board member whose son is involved with a construction company that does work on the board member's building, not the lawsuit issue, which I didn't see initiailly.

Not necessarily. The dual role of BM and shareholder may bring conflicting issues that may not mean that the person needs to step down. Don't know the circumstances that led to such a lawsuit. The only thing to do is the BM should step out of the meeting until the matter is discussed and the issue is not recorded on the minutes. Also, other BM should be extremely discreet not to be adversarial or comment on the lawsuit.

Board meeting may start w/o the attendance of the board member in question when legal issues relating to the lawsuit are discussed OR discussion with counsel should not be announced to the person in question.

AdC

This lawsuit was brought as a shareholder NOT a Board Member. There is absolutely NO conflict of interest.

Here's my take - not a legal opinion, by any stretch.

Any time a board member/shareholder may benefit financially, there is an automatic conflict of interest, since the board member's fiduciary interest must be with the co-op first, last and always. The shareholder, as a board member, must therefore recuse him/herself from voting on all issues dealing with the source or consequences of that conflict.

The board member, as a plaintiff, should not be privy to financial discussions or votes of any kind affecting the co-op, as defendant.

As I said, not a legal opinion, just my own.

There is no financial gain to the action that was brought, it's for RELIEF, (injunctive relief). When people don't know the full story or Action, they just summize.

To all who answered.

First of all I am the one who brought the ACTION against the corporation for not protecting my rights as a resident, which I might add I am entitled todo whether a Board Member or not. I am acting as a shareholder. There have been Boards where Board Members sued other Members, they do not have to step down, as most of you stated you don't know the circumstances. I Recused myself from this issue, you must also know that we have an extremely biased and prejudicial Board. They only work for the residents they feel they should work for NOT for all equally. Do any of you have that problem? I'd like to hear about that. I have been harassed and targeted by certain Members on the Board from them and through other residents in the building. Have any of you experienced that? So when opinions are given, please note all information is not given. If anyone would like to answer - please be my guest. Thank you.

i believe it, lots of board members do not know their responsibilities to the shareholders.
if i thought i wasn't going to be throwing money away on attorneys, i would do the same.
there are a couple of shareholders in this co-op that should bring legal action against and the board and managing agent for refusing to help with a upstairs resident , that per the proprietary lease , should never have moved in, and should not be living in the apartment.

At a minimum, the board member must refrain from participating in the discussion of any matter even remotely connected to the lawsuit, and should not be present during such discussions. Furthermore, the board member should have no contact with your attorney or any vendor who might be involved in the suit.

In practice, the board member should resign. The potential for a conflict of interest -- real or perceived -- is just too high, especially if the director is an officer. How are you going to convince the other shareholders that this director will be acting in the best interests of the coop if he's simultaneously so angry with the corporation that he's taking legal action against it?

I believe this happened on our Board last year. The Board voted to create an "executive committee" who had the power to make decisions. This way the board member with the seemingly conflict was excluded from much Board biz. Good luck

Our Board already did this and excluded 2 Board Members because they had a difference of opinion. NO CHECKS AND BALANCES. That's too bad that people act like that, kind of a dictatorship.

That a board member thinks it is ok to 'represent myself as a shareholder in a lawsuit against the building and there is no conflict of interest' reminds me not to take seriously everything I read here. I thought at first that only knowlegeable and committed board members participated in this forum, but that is clearly not the case.

Every Board Member is a Shareholder first. Just because you are on the Board does not mean you lose your rights as a resident? That's kind of absurd. Also, starting a Board within a Board, that's disenfranchising those shareholders who voted for any of the Members that are being excluded, does anyone think that's right? As far as being a committed Board Member has nothing to do with someone's - anyone's right as a shareholder. I don't know if the individual who stated "reminds me not to take seriously" is an attorney? Every Member has rights as a shareholder. Have you lost your rights because you are on the Board? I would hope not. If so, that's really sad.

This is no doorman building. We get management to bring in security during the hours of open house. All sign in and the seller has to pay the Co Op for this service.

there were quite a few postings on curbed about people going to open houses and stealing from the seller. They were now instructing sellers to put any jewelery, watches , any thing small in a different location. However not all the items were small, i think they caught a couple that were stealing larger items from the open house.

I never really trusted brokers to begin with. LOL

Nick(ed)

We do not allow OPEN HOUSE. No one is allowed in without the broker or the owner.
No posting of signs on polls etc.

An open house means the potential buyer gets to look at that apartment that is listed and scheduled for an open house. They should not be wondering your building without management/board approval. Your Super/Resident Manager needs to be proactive in setting the rules unless directed otherwise by the manager or the board. This is a breech of security, for all you know it could some kook!! Your building is not a rental, so they should stop treating it like one.

In a building that I manage all unit owners/brokers have to register their open house with management. We ask for the broker(s) name(s) and that is given to the door staff along with the notice of the open house. If someone attempts to have an open house with registering, we do not allow potential buyers in. It's a hard stance but it has worked well and unit owners accepted it. In a non-doorman building we do something similar but we pay the Super extra to be present during the open house and we only allow open houses from 12-6pm.

We do not permit an open house of any type at any time for any reason.

Hence, no issues, no folks wandering about, no security concerns.

When showing an apartment either the seller must be present or must authorize entry.

The real estate broker is required to sign-in and sign out.

Good 'Ole FDNY!
I would contact the building next door and ask them to ensure that it is included in thier claim.. then follow up to make sure it happens.

Good Luck
~AR

Interesting subject and I now have a further related question. Our downstair door wells are locked from the ground floor but can be opened from the inside of stairwell. We had an incident many years ago that an assailant entered the residential floors and held a man and his family up with a gun.

Question:- there have been a few callouts to the building by the FDNY for faulty gas monitors to three different apartments. The FDNY do not wait a second for somebody to get a key to unlock the stairwell doors and rightly so they do a great job.The stair well doors and frame are badly damaged.

TO ANSWER THE INITIAL QUESTION:-Don't worry present all billing/claims to the adjoining building and if you had overtime staff present, remember claim everything to them for any extra costs to your CoOP or Condo.

Absolutely, Your shares count..
I’m not asking about the decisions themselves because I have seen this scenario many, many times, but not without proper correction as the end result.
If there are only 2 Board members making these decisions, where is the rest of the Board? Why are they silent? Do you have any allies? And the managing Agent? He/she can be liable also for decisions that are knowingly detrimental to the buildings fiscal health.
There is a thing called fiduciary responsibilities which every Board member and managing agent are required to uphold...

~AR

Well, we're not sure a third BM is not moving out, and the fourth BM goes with the majority all the time. Met with SHs today, and, of course, they want to call a special meeting. Problem is, a lot of irrevocable financial damage is being done on a daily basis. Told what we really need is an injunction but that is expensive.

Also, you said you need 25% to call the meeting, how much do you need to have any type of vote at that meeting, is it the same? probably its more... You'll need proxies and real bodies there.
No damage is irrevocable. It's your investment and you need to now dig in and bring the stock prices back up by getting proactive, longer term thinkers in the Boardroom and management.
'Best
~AR

My other Board members are partially responsible for the situation that is calling for the Special Meeting so Shareholders can attempt to get full disclosure. Under Business Judgment Rule it seems Board can do whatever they want in terms of fiduciary duty -- even giving a vendor preference over the financial stability of the corp.

That could a little high, depending on location; but esp. for personal property, unless the individual has a boatload of jewelry/valuables.

If you're talking about the building replacement cost, it needs to cover materials and labor to reconstruct the apartment exactly as is, with comparable materials (not as you wish it would be). If you now have a high-end reno, buy coverage accordingly. Personal property would include furnishings and appliances, I think (check your policy).

And if there's a lot of valuables (art, etc.), consider a rider.

We discovered that our policy was reversed - would have had little coverage for the physical structure and way too much for personal property. That also means we overpaid premiums by a LOT.

Now seeking refund.... good luck on that ; )

It sounds as if the person recommending $300,000 was talking about Personal Liability insurance.
A coop/condo/renters policy covers personal property (household furnishings, additions & improvements etc)as well as personal liability.
The personal property limit has to be set by the individual who knows what it would cost to replace his property as well as any additions & improvements to the apartment..
Students usually don't need more than $25,000 but that depends on what he/she has in the apt
$300,000 is fine for the liability aspect although I always recommend a higher limit which doesn't cost very much more.
Ask your broker/agent for suggestions and prices.

Hi,

We have a requirement for insurance coverage that includes "Loss Assessment" coverage. We were encouraged to put this into place based on the events at Castle Village after that wall fell down. We leave the amounts (limits) up to discussions between the shareholder and their insurance agent. We just require that the Co-op Corporation is a named insured (mainly for enforcement). We issue a $250 fine for lack of coverage. This fine is well documented as a “fine” and not an insurance purchase on their behalf.

I believe this is not permittable. In the evet of an emergency then yes we have the right to enter for the health and saftey of the building and its residents.
I work as a Resident Manager and in the buildings I have worked in and currently work in now that is the rule that we all respect, after all that is your home that you purchased. If it were a rental then the landlord could enter at anytime for what ever reason he could justify in inspecting his apartment. In a coop/condo things are different.

Just thinking out loud here... if the Board President is the head of the cooperative corporation, the co-op owns the building, and the co-op and its Shareholders have a Landlord-Tenant relationship (which courts have found they do; check your PL), then in any emergency, the duly elected representative/president is acting in good faith on the corporation's behalf and would have both the right and responsibility to enter an apartment to take reparative action on behalf of the co-op's safety. (And, as an employee of the corporation, tasked with dealing with emergencies, so does the super.)

We're not talking browsing or window shopping or malignant invasion of privacy, but taking action in an emergency.

I purposely posted the article to see if there were any situations where it would be permissable. The situations I am referring to would be at discrete times as the BP had his own set agenda to enter. As far as I am concerned this is illegal entry as he is/was in no way acting on behalf of the Coop/Condo

In a word, yes. Our former BP did enter at least one apartment to my knowledge when occupants of the apartment below complained of water leaking from above. No idea how he got the key. Although on the board, I didn’t really have much say about such matters at the time. Seems to me that the super/management company should have gone in. For whatever reason, though, the BP took it upon himself to enter the apartment. The VP and VP’s wife also entered the apartment at the time.

It’s a great question. What were the circumstances around your BP entering shareholders’ apartments?

i an sure the shareholder could start legal action iF this case was not an true emergency
unkless the super or residenbt manager ciuld not be summuned in a timeluy manner for the emergency, since resident mangers and suers have cells phones, woulds have to wonder why they couldn't be found, if a live in super, might look into why your having live in super if they cant report in, same with resident manager, there job is not 9 to 5.
as a ex public utility worker that had to be admitted to apartments in a line to locate the trouble. i would reqest the super stay with me of i would leave.
as far as a new bod member not having any say, i do not tink th courts woulds agree with you . protect your self, t next bod meeting nake a motion to place on minutes that you diasagree with such action and chck the minutes next meeting, you are liable if you know.

Our Shareholders felt more comfortable with the BP accompanying the super on an emergency call.

No BP or board member should have a right to enter someone's apt any more than a super does - only in an emergency or with a SH's advance permission.

No other SHs should be allowed to enter someone's apt either. We had apts with leaks, pests, sanitary issues, etc. and neighbors affected by them wanted to see for themselves that the issues were taken care of, even after we told them they were. One SH with damage from a leak refused to pay maintenance unless we let him see that the bathroom above him was fixed "to his satisfaction". This was resolved, and SHs were told that withholding maintenance could cause legal problems for them.

Just as some SHs think they have a right to see any coop documents they want to see,some SHs think they can enter any building area, including other apts, if it suits their purposes. Not so.

Board members should not enter shareholder’s apartments unless give permission by owner. Board members come and go and others have their own agenda or vendetta against particular shareholders. Therefore entrance into Apt. can be no more than just an excuse. In my experience, when repairs were made to my apt. and super was authorized to enter with vendor, I found that the president had also entered my apt. with the super. Was it necessary for president to oversee super fix a flushometer? Entrance to Apts. should is by the super and managing Co.

Check your Proprietary Lease. It probably contains something like the following, from Paragraph 25 of our own lease:

"Right of Entry: The Lessor and its agents and their authorized workmen shall be permitted to visit, examine, or enter the apartment and any storage space assigned to Lessee at any reasonable hour of the day upon notice, or at any time and without notice in case of emergency, to make or facilitate repairs in any part of the building or to cure any default by the Lessee ...."

That's simultaneously broad enough for usefulness and restrictive enough to protect shareholders. There are lots of legitimate reasons why "the Lessor and its agents" might need to enter an apartment, but there are even more reasons that wouldn't fall under this clause.