Check the Habitat "Previous New Products" section. (Link is at Site Map) I've seen a lot of security products, hidden cameras, etc. there

The only way I can think of to ID the vandal is on video unless you catch him in the act. Google the words "wireless security camera" or "battery operated security camera". There are a lot of styles available that can send wireless recordings to a TV, DVD or VCR.

One type is a "nanny cam", a tiny wireless camera about the size of a coin that can be installed anywhere. You could install it near the ceiling at one end of a hallway or a landing to record activity in that area. Parents use it to video record the "nanny" (or babysitter) who cares for their children to see how they treat them. That's how it got its name. It's not easy to spot because it's so tiny and doesn't look like a video camera, and it's not very expensive.

We have used the x10 wireless system in some of mny building with great success.

~AR

According to the New York Times (Oct. 18, 1998): "The increase [in combined apartments] has been assisted by a changed in the regulations of the New York City Buildings Department, which decided a year ago that it would no longer require a revised certificate of occupancy when spaces were connected."

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/18/realestate/in-combining-apartments-1-1-2.html

Not a legal answer, but probably fairly definitive.

JB: The following is an article from Habitat


Combining Apartments? Use Directive 14
By Frank Lovece

You're combining two apartments, something hundreds if not thousands of co-op and condo owners have done. The board gave its initial go-ahead, approved your architect's plans, signed off on your contractor being duly licensed and insured, and said OK to your construction schedule. Work went as planned, and now your board says you need to have a Department of Buildings inspector come in to revise the now-combined apartment's Certificate of Occupancy.

But wait! There's a quicker, more convenient alternative — one that some boards aren't even aware of. It's called Directive 14.

That might sound like a presidential order from a spy movie, but Directive 14, created by the Department of Buildings in 1975, is a way of obtaining a C of O revision without going through the entire C of O rigmarole. For projects not involving a change or use or occupancy, you can forego having a DOB inspector come in, and instead have the licensed architect or engineer of record simply certify that the work has all been done to code.

The DOB devised the directive at a time when 40,000 applications for C of O revisions were streaming in annually. Allowing architects and engineers to essentially self-certify — with stringent penalties for those abusing the directive — helped unplug the near-impossible backlog.

"Directive 14 is an option any permit applicant has to let the engineer or architect certify a project, so that you don't have to be physically inspected by the Department of Buildings," explains Sam Pruyn, who with his stepbrother Matthew Calvo runs the Sunnyside, Queens-based consultancy and expediting firm Building Brothers, Inc.

The way it works, says Pruyn (pronounced "prine") is that the architect or engineer "identifies at the beginning of the application process which items that the DOB requires certification for, and which items [the architect or engineer] is assuming that responsibility for. At the end of the project, [the architect or engineer] submits a follow-up form stating they have reviewed the project after it has been completed, and that all the items they were going to certify has been done up to DOB requirements."

C of O revisions "aren't really about structural changes," Pruyn notes, "but about use of the building or apartment. If a room on the first floor, let's say, is classified as storage and was turned into an apartment, that's a C of O issue. It doesn't mean there were structural changes. It just means a portion of the building that was listed as unoccupied is now occupied." Likewise, "Removing a kitchen from a combined apartment would be a C of O issue, but isn't necessarily a structural issue."

Since boards aren't always aware of Directive 14, it's up to the co-op shareholder or condo unit-owner to explain that this is a valid DOB alternative to having a city inspector physically come in for a formal inspection.

I live in a co-op in which the apartment I currently occupy consist of 2 apartments combined (that is how I originally took possession of the apartment as a renter). After the building turned co-op (to make a long story short) we had to file the appropriate paperwork to maintain the apartment in the "as-is" condition by hiring an architect who submitted all the paperwork to the Department of Buildings (DOB in NYC). However, we did not have to amend the C of O due to a law that (as I was told) was passed in the 70s stating that 2 apartments combined no longer required changing the C of O as long as you file and state that you do not want the C of O to change. By not changing the C of O (which is the least expensive option) I continue to enjoy living in a 2 apartment combined situation, however, I do pay 2 maintenance fees because in essence I own 2 share certificates. If the C of O was changed to represent that I no longer live in a 2 apartment situation, but rather live in one apartment, the total number of units in the building would decrease (in my case from 35 units to 34 units) AND I would only be allowed to have 1 share certificate, hence, pay one maintenance fee as well. I can't speak for every existing situation(s), but that was my dilemma several years ago...I do hope this was helpful.

You've been wonderfully helpful and a real community!

In general, would you say that combinations in your typical NYC coop increase the value of the overall property?

As far as I know you can't do that with Wordpress. To setup security you'll need something more sophisticated like Joomla or Drupal or some other CMS

You can do that with free template on wordpress (http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/) and by using a plugin for the forum (http://simplepressforum.com/). There are free themes listed sometimes in the "Freebies" section of http://www.smashingmagazine.com. Also, for $35 and less you have an incredible array of professionally designed themes on http://www.themeforest.net/category/wordpress. Sometimes it's worth footing the $35 or so. The authors are also there to help you with questions that you have.

I have seen rats in toilets in the basement of buildings on the upper east side a couple of years ago why being the superintendent.

How did u get rid of the problem? Plumber or exterminator?

We had our plumbing come and do a master snake job, after that we never seen anymore.

We had our plumbing company come and do a master snake job, after that we never seen anymore.

get a large smake and let him loose in the toilet!

Yes, I thought this was just a silly urban legend until I found a rat in the basement toilet in my home! They can come up from the sewer line up the drain to the toilet. I researched it quite a bit after it happened to me. There are several things you can do to prevent it from happening again, but in the meantime, keep the lid on your toilet when not in use to keep the rats from jumping out and getting loose in your home. For more information about what I learned in my research, visit:
http://www.squidoo.com/Rat-in-the-toilet

Well I worked for close to 7yrs as a non union super and I have never had a problem. I now work as a resident manager in which my position is unionized. In order on finding the right candidate, it all depends on what your compensation package is! and ofcourse the size of the apt. I had a very good offer for a live in resident manager positon in a newly constructed luxury condo which I had to delcine due to the fact that the job came with a 1 one bedroom apt, I am a family of 4 which includes 2 small children under the age of 7. Needless to say the manager and develpoer both were not happy. So it all depends on what your offering and how you want him to manage your building. if you want to micro manage then you will be changing supers more frequently then you would like. As far as giving him 3months notice. All depends on why you want him out? is he a threat? is he negligent to the needs of the building or its residents? if so then maybe before winter comes along you might want to make a change.

we recently hired a new super. the Super's Club website is a good source of candidates. look at the resumes posted by those seeking positions.

Need to know what the hiring package has, 1 or 2 bedroom apartment, parking etc. I could get you some resumes from my members who be looking. Please let me know.

Mike MacGowan
Manhattan Resident Managers Club, Inc.
Mikemac72@aol.com

The time you permit is dependant on the reason he is being let go... is there animosity? Do you expect a fight? is there a severance?

typically, if there is an issue and you expect a challenge you would provide official written notice (terminating employment in 30 days and tenancy in 60-90), immediately begin a holdover to cover yourself and work out a severance agreement (if any). put it all on paper, make the severance contingent on his leaving by a certain date, and sign it.

I can send you a good termination, severance and indemnification via email if you like..

Good supers are a dime a dozen right now... I would take advantage of the sites and referrals provided by the other posters here.

~AR

Although I am not lawyer (and I suggest that the Board discussed this with theirs), I have always been told that treating everyone the same is the best policy. I would suggest not grandfathering. I would also suggest that the President recuse himself/herself from the decision.

Treating all shareholders equally is not only the best policy ethically, it's the required policy legally. That is, under New York State corporate law you must treat all shareholders the same.

Of course, you can always make exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

But if I were on your board, I would suggest that the long-time sub-lettors be required to follow the same rule as everyone else. Once the rule is enacted, why not give them the same amount of time as everyone else? So even after having sublet for, say, a decade, the new people will have three more years (or whatever you decide is the max) once the policy goes into place.

Not only does it treat everyone fairly, it keeps you out of legal jeopardy, too.

Rigidity rather than flexibility is, in fact, not good governing. As a lawyer explained here:

http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_content/2008_october/featured_articles_from_our_print_magazine/authoritarian_boards_public_rancor/authoritarian_boards_public_rancor_p_2

"A board can decide to not enforce a rule," notes attorney Joseph G. Colbert, a partner at Kagan Lubic Lepper Lewis Gold & Colbert, and an adjunct professor at St. John's University School of Law. "If it's just something the board passed and not a bylaw amendment, then the board, like any political body, can interpret when these rules can be enforced, subject of the approval or disapproval of the residents."

Grandfathering was the wise solution in this case, in which a board until then had wasted enormous time, energy and money and found itself harshly spotlight on TV news.

It probably wouldn't hurt to read one of the articles at http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_info/site_map#subletting

DavidG - "board member" is right. Per state Business Corporation Law (the "BCL"), all SHs must be treated "fairly and equally." Other than occasional exceptions for good reason, what applies to one applies to all.

Your coop attorney should first check your by-laws to see what they say on subletting. I have a few questions for you.

1) You said 2 SHs asked to sublet with the same rights/duration/terms as the original three. What makes the three who sublet for 10+ years "original" and why do their rights etc. differ from other SHs who sublet?

2) Unless a new sublet policy/grandfathering was suggested to all SHs (e.g., in a memo or at the annual meeting), why are SHs asking for special terms or involved in this? What a board discusses among themselves including new rules it may enact shouldn't be open to opinion or question by everyone.

3) You said your board pres is related to a grandfathered renter. Doesn't that mean you already have "grandfathering" in place - and if so, how did that come about???

4) 3 units in your 57-unit bldg have been sublet for over 10 years. How many total sublets do you have in your bldg?

In my opinion, your board should carefully review its sublet policy, make sure you have a comprehensive sublet application package, and as required by law treat all SHs fairly and equally in enforcing your sublet policy.

If you want to enact a new policy allowing subletting for 3 of every 5 years and add a fee, fine, but make sure your by-laws permit this. If they do and you don't have a fee, you should. I don't know of any coops that don't charge a sublet fee and they are all substantial, not just a token fee like $50 or $100. Our coop (and others I know) have a fee for all new AND renewal sublets equal to 2 months maintenance. Especially in smaller bldgs with few ways of generating funds, a sublet fee can be a good source of revenue.

In my reply to DavidG with my 4 questions on subletting, I neglected to enter my name. I'm BP, not Anonymous. I forgot to fill in the blanks at the top of my posting. Sorry!

I don't mean to be impolite or snarky, but since your post appears -- and I may be misreading -- to give legal advice that directly contradicts a widely credentialed attorney, I'm not sure that's a proper thing to do. Laypersons don't generally have an accurate reading of the nuances and subtleties of law, and probably should not be dispensing legal opinion.

JB - Your post stated the following:
"A board can decide to not enforce a rule," notes attorney Joseph G. Colbert, a partner at Kagan Lubic Lepper Lewis Gold & Colbert, and an adjunct professor at St. John's University School of Law. "If it's just something the board passed and not a bylaw amendment, then the board, like any political body, can interpret when these rules can be enforced, subject of the approval or disapproval of the residents."

I'm not sure what you mean by saying I directly contradicted the above attorney and I, a lay person, shouldn't dispense legal opinion. I suggested to DavidG that his coop see what its by-laws say on subletting before enacting any new policy. I also said business corporation law requires that all SHs be treated the same which is widely known. I didn't contradict the above attorney who said a board can decide when a rule it passed should/shouldn't be enforced. My comments weren't even on that point. Sorry, JB, but I think you did misinterpret my posting.

If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Here's what I read on your posting:

>>it's the required policy legally. That is, under New York State corporate law you must treat all shareholders the same.>Of course, you can always make exceptions on a case-by-case basis.<<

When a layman uses the term "legally" and references "New York State corporate law," my instinct is to ask for a cite. One of the most dangerous things I find in any discussion is the notion that one's lay interpretation of the law is a claim "which is widely known." In my long experience, things we believe are widely known often are not true.

There also seems to be a contradiction, where you say all shareholders must be treated equally, except when you make exceptions. Exceptions, ipso facto, are unequal treatment. {This is different from treating shareholder fairly, which I'm sure we can all agree is the proper thing to do.) So I'm not sure what you're saying.

JB - My posting name is "BP". On my last post, I forgot to put it at the top and my post was sent as "Anonymous." I sent another post noting that. That aside, you're referring to lines about >>must treat all shareholders the same>of course you can always make exceptions on a case by case basis>Thus, board members are fiduciaries to the shareholders and unit owners who have elected them to their position of power. Accordingly, individual co-op and condo board members are strictly prohibited from self dealing to the detriment of their association and its constituent shareholders or unit owners. They are also required by law to treat their shareholders or unit owners with meticulous fairness and equality.<<

See: http/www.cooperator.com/Is-Your-Board-Carrying-Out-Its-Fiduciary-Duty/Page 1.html

I'm sure many other posters here can agree that treating all shareholders the same is a widely known fact and is true.

As for making exceptions, what I said wasn't to imply unfair or unequal treatment - only making an occasional exception to a coop rule. For example, if a coop allows apt work from 8am to 4pm, but a resident asks if his men can work until 5pm which will enable them to finish the work and not have to return another day. That's simply an accommodation if a board deems it acceptable. I doubt there are any coops that won't make exceptions to rules occasionally if they don't disturb the bldg or other residents or aren't unreasonable.

I would like to thank everyone for their response and feedback. As a new member to this board, we will be updating our polices and look for common practice to help at least drive a direction that is consistent, and fair to our shareholders, that allows flexibility but is firm and sets a goal of a financially and structurally sound building.
After reading the comments, previous discussions and articles, as well as previous experience, we will work with our attorney to craft a policy that will be consistent with our bylaws, prop lease, and NY law.
One goal is to ensure each shareholder has a binder with the policies for their reference - to reduce noise around operating procedure, increase transparency, and allow our co-op to become something special. I know we can&#146;t please everyone, but we will remain focused to do the best we can for our shareholders.

Thanks again for your comments.

To quoe the Ny Observer:

"Should the decision indeed be retroactive, as the tenants have requested, the existing tenants currently paying market rates would see their rents dramatically lowered. It would be as if they never had been de-stabilized, and tenants could even receive back-rent for the difference between the market and regulated rents.

The decision applies to other owners who deregulated apartments while in the J-51 program as well.

CAN THIS HELP REDUCE SPONSOR PRESENCE? DOES ANYONE KNOW?

It may be that the J-51 fits in to this. But a knowledgible person will have to answer.

In otherwords, if the sponsor apts have not been getting the annual abatement, then this may not effect those units that have been deregulated.