Did the sponsor give you a reason why you couldn't sit in? Did you interview your renter yourself before they went for the interview? If your answer is yes you did interview the renter before the board approved then I would have trusted my fellow board members. By you insisting on being in the room made them so upset they walked out. I would talk to them and apologize for the misunderstanding. The full board voted to reject your tenant because you did not trust the Admissions committee to interview them without you.

Question #1: Since you are a board member who participates in perspective subtenant interviews and since it is your perspective subtenant who is being interviewed, your other board member might have felt you had a conflict of interest. Even if you remained silent at the interview, the simple fact of your presence could have influenced other board members into asking "softball" questions or not asking pertinent but difficult questions out of deference to you. It's just not a good idea for a board member who has a perspective purchaser or tenant to participate in that interview.

Your comment about "...make sure they give the correct information to the applicant" concerns me. It sounds like you and other board members have differences of opinion about what the subtenant should or should not be told. Your predisposition to approve your own subtenancy could easily color what you say, and this could be of concern to the other board members.

Question #2: Unless specifically stated otherwise in the proprietary lease or bylaws, there is no minimum limit on the number of attendees at a purchaser or subtenant interview. You first wrote the board voted unanimously to reject your tenant. Then you asked if only one board member could interview and then unilaterally make a decision about the tenant. This seems contradictory as to the number of board members involved.

Many boards vote to reject purchasers and subtenants without an interview. This usually occurs if, for example, the board feels a purchaser's financials are not strong enough, there is something unsavory revealed in a background check, the purchaser or subtenant has any sort of diplomatic immunity (impossible to control or evict), things like this.

Most attorneys strongly recommend that the interview be used to meet-and-greet and not as a venue for discovery. Once the purchaser/subtenant and the board meet face to face and if they are rejected, it is much more difficult to defend against charges of discrimination of a protected class.

All in all, it sounds like your board acted appropriately and you simply should have recused yourself from the interview.

Kinda long, but I hope this helps.

I've never heard of coops doing annual inspections, but I would expect there to be something in the bylaws, house rules, etc. stating that it will be done. What are they looking for? Hoarders? Washers/dryers if not permitted? Some localities do house inspections periodically for tax assessment purposes, but the building staff would not be doing that.
In my coop, we provide an 'apartment condition checklist' to be reviewed by the super in the presence of a new owner or renter/sublet to verify that drains drain, faucets are not dripping, lights/outlets work, windows/latches/locks in good repair, etc. Then the necessary parties are advised of any deficiencies. I have thought about having building staff do 'preventative' inspections - check window locks and latches, drain pipes under sinks once a year or so, haven't implemented it.

Add to all of the above -
Annually a required changing the AC filters and inspection to see legally required detectors are working.

My co-op does annual inspections. We absolutely have that right. We are looking for hoarders who could cause a safety issue, but we are also looking for people who are hiding things like dishwashers, washers, dryers.

In addition, we are looking for people who might be renting out rooms (looking for room dividers).

Unfortunately, it's a fact that a small percentage of shareholders are dishonest. Their cheating ways jeopardize the financial well being of the co-op, in addition to the safety and security of the shareholders.

I agree with JG. I've never heard of a board requiring and/or performing any regularly scheduled inspection. As a rule, board members cannot enter an apartment without the shareholder's explicit permission unless they believe an emergency condition exists. Your proprietary lease and house rules should state this, and any exceptions to the rule, such as an annual inspection.

Have you asked the board for the reason they want to perform an inspection? Without an emergency condition existing I believe you have the right to refuse entry. If they insist or demand entry to inspect without documented authority you may need to contact an attorney.

Thank you for all the responses.
To JG and Steven 424 I'd like to say that I've only been living at this coop for 3 years and I didn't know much about housing coops when I moved in.
The inspections were already included in the Rules and Regulation, under housekeeping: "Inspections of all units will be done once every eighteen months" "The purpose of the inspection shall be to evaluate conditions which may be hazardous to life, health or safety of the occupants and those in the adjoining units" Of course that could be interpreted differently by different people and I don't know if it happens in your coops but in ours we've had a lot of turnover in terms of Board and Office Managers who are the ones conducting the inspections. Besides the inspections itself, that many members find intrusive, unpleasant and irksome, the failing of the inspection can set up a procedure for eviction. I don't know how many people have been evicted as a result of an inspection but I know cases where they have sent eviction notices.
I would like to ask you if you all belong to the NAHC and if there are other associations. I've read about coops but I'd like to have some support and a way to compare notes in the world of housing cooperatives. I've never got any response to my questions from the NAHC. It's a good thing that I found this forum. Thank you all!

All of my experience has been with cooperative apartments in NYC. I know there are many different flavors of co-ops and condos in other parts of the country, with many different rules and regulations and customs. You might want to use Google to search for more localized information. If you live in Chicago, try googling "Chicago cooperative apartments" and see what turns up.

To find out more about NYC co-ops and condos, take a look at the Council of NYC Cooperatives and Condominiums here: https://www.cnyc.com/ . This is the main umbrella trade organization representing and advocating for NYC co-ops and condos. If you ask a question on their website someone might be able to recommend a similar organization in your locale.

It is not legal to take pictures of your place by any means and if they do without your permission I'd talk/contact my lawyer. If your by laws state this requirement you have 2 choices. (1) Try to change it....(2) Sell as ASAP. Now that you have learned this lesson next time read the by laws before you buy and get a lawyer who should have advised you not to buy. Best of Luck

I find this site very helpful.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/business-corporation-law/

Good Luck

Try this URL. It looks like a good place to start:
http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1448/co-op-or-condo-complaint

You need to check with a lawyer, but NY BCL Section 609 provides that a shareholder can act at any shareholder meeting by proxy.

If the shareholders are calling a meeting to amend the By-Laws or Prop Lease or do anything else of substance, you should definitely have a lawyer to advise the Board/Shareholders and make sure the proper procedures are followed.

Signing a petition is not the same as voting. If 2/3 of all the members in your building signed the petition, it sounds like you have more than enough signatures to require the board to put the amendment up for a membership vote.

Check your bylaws to see if there are any conditions or requirements for an amendment vote. Some bylaws require a special member meeting at which the vote is taken. There may be other stipulations as well.

To pass the amendment, more than 50% of *all* members (not just more than 50% of the members at the meeting) must vote in favor of the amendment. Full attendance is very important. If your building has 100 members and only 60 show up at the meeting, you still need 51 members voting to ratify the amendment. 31 members (more than half of the members at the meeting) will not be enough. Check if proxy votes are allowed at a special meeting. Thay may help you get to the required majority of all members.

If your building has an attorney, check with them for the best interpretation of your bylaws and especially the meaning of the word "member".

Good luck!

Steven - My co-op has different rules from yours, just to let the original poster know that not all co-ops have the same rules.

To amend the by-laws in my co-op, we must have 2/3 approval of the members present at the special meeting (usually our Annual Meeting) - provided we have a quorum.

Steven makes a good point of checking your by-laws to review how to pass an amendment. My experience with by-laws is that procedures for amending the by-laws normally are always specifically discussed in the by-laws.

My experience with amending by-laws is different from Steven's. The lawyers and building managers that I know have said that their co-ops must have 2/3 approval of the members present at the special meeting in order to amend the by-laws.

This is why it's important to review your specific by-laws. Good luck!

Thanks Marty, the rest of article vIII at any reg. Or sp. Mtg., provided that no amendment shall become effective unless and until it has received the written approval of the administration. Amendments may be proposed by the B.O.D. or by petition signed by at least 20 percent of the members. A description of any proposed amendment shall accompany the notice at any Reg. Or Sp. Mtg. At which such proposed amendment is to be voted upon.

Thanks Steven, very helpful response.

Is the Estate in violation of any clause in the Proprietary Lease or House Rules?
You'll need to check with an attorney whether/how the residency clause in the lease applies to an estate.

Very sorry to hear about this. There's no scarier word in a co-op than bedbug.

I agree with you in that my first thought is that this is a health and safety issue, so the treasurer's apartment and every other apartment needs to be examined and treated if necessary. This needs to be done immediately - regardless of who the shareholders are.

Besides your wife's opinion, why does the rest of the not want to move forward? THAT is very troubling to hear about your Board. Not a good sign.

I wouldn't worry about pulling his shares - that's the least of your problems.

I'm not an attorney, but I would notify the rest of the Board that you will be immediately contacting your co-op's attorney, and tell him/her to do whatever is necessary to get into the apartment ASAP. Ask your attorney if the NYC Board of Health needs to be notified, too. Keep your building manager in this loop. Time is of the essence and you cannot wait a moment longer. Everyone must work together to fix this problem.

This is way past what the treasurer wants or doesn't want. You MUST get into the apartment to do what needs to be done. The Board legally owes that to the other shareholders.

How many other shareholders and apartments are there?

Since the treasurer won't cooperate, I'm guessing that you'll likely need legal justification (attorney) and/or health/safety justification (NYC Board of Health) to make things happen quickly.

I agree that the Board is violating their fiduciary duty, which opens up a whole different can of worms.

When we learned of an infestation about 5-6 years ago, we were fortunate that the shareholder was very cooperative, so he made it easy for us on the Board to quickly nip the problem in the bud.

I wish you a safe and quick resolution to your problem and keep us posted.

Others may have different opinions, but my advice is to retain your own lawyer asap. The situation you describe, a board officer who is uncooperative and a hoarder, a board that refuses to acknowledge or address the situation, multiple ineffective exterminations, apparent gross violations of the warranty of habitability... this will not have a good ending. Your own lawyer will, at least, help you prepare for what is sure to become a litigious situation.

There are probably less expensive intermediate steps you can take such as lodging complaints with 311, the Board of Health, Dept of Buildings, etc, but something like this needs a coordinated, focused approach that an attorney will provide.

If you can't afford to retain an attorney, try searching Google for suggestions. Keep in mind that at some point you and the board will most likely be adversaries. If this happens, having an attorney who is familiar with your situation will save you a lot more financially and emotionally than the up front costs.

Good luck to you.

I don't understand why the board nor the managing agent won't act on this nor your wife who's on the board can't get anything done. If this was me I'd get in touch with the health dept. I'd call 311 and go to see Brad Lander
City government office in New York City, New York
Address: 456 5th Ave & 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11215
Phone: (718) 499-1090. Explain your dilemma. They can also advise you.
Document everything and if you can take pictures with dates and show proof. With all this in hand consult a lawyer who can advise you of what to do, also calling 311 and explaining what's going on. Best of Luck

Dear All,
Thank you so much for the comments. We plan to hire our own lawyer this week. We have documented everything--with notes, photos, emails and so on. If anyone has a real estate attorney they would recommend, please comment here. We really appreciate it!

Once they're in a building, it's nearly impossible to get rid of them. They end up in the walls. Everywhere. Good luck.

I had a wonderful real estate attorney who closed on my coop seven years ago. I don't know if he also does this kind of litigation or not: Arnold Spiegel, (212) 687-5225
Email SPIEGELRELAW@GMAIL.COM

You should also check with the NYS AG office.

Leah - I did some research and came across this article:

https://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Legal-Financial/2014/2014-February/Co-op-Board-Bedbug-Responsibilities.

The article was written by an attorney with familiarity in these matters, so you might want to contact him if you don't already have an attorney you use. I still recommend you hire your own attorney to protect *your* rights and interests as a shareholder, and not because you are a board member.

If push comes to shove (and it sounds like it will) do you think you can gather enough shareholder votes to demand a special meeting of the shareholders to discuss and take action on this issue? The rules for special meetings should be in your bylaws. If you can get the votes, then you can override the board's inactions, get the co-op's attorney involved (he may feel he has a conflict of interest because another board member is involved), and you can contact the co-op's insurance company to see if any of the extermination expenses are covered by your policy.

your board is breaching their fiduciary responsibility by not taking action. we just had a similar (far less major) situation. a shareholder had a roach infestation several years ago. apartment was filthy. building paid for special extermination, told them they had to clean, and that if it happened again, they would have to cover all costs. just happened again and they refused the special extermination. within 4 hours of their refusal, we had an attorney communication sent to them. there's no good reason at all for the way your board is acting. contact an attorney and force their hand.

In my opinion, your most reliable source of information about what is and is not covered by your HO6 policy is your insurance agent or broker. HO6 policies come in all sizes, colors, and flavors, and can have a myriad of different endorsements.

If your policy has an item called "Loss Assessment", you may very well be covered and can file a claim. Here is my ins co's definition of Loss Assessment:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss Assessment
Coverage D

This valuable condominium unitowners insurance coverage is uniquely designed for owners in condominiums/ associations. It recognizes the potential for owners to be assessed for certain kinds of loss. Here are examples of circumstances that might require the condominium association to assess all unit owners:

* Someone is seriously injured on common property (perhaps at a swimming pool) and the courts award a judgment that's higher than the amount of liability coverage provided by the condominium/association policy.
* Major damage occurs to commonly owned buildings and it is not fully covered by insurance.

For covered losses, loss assessment coverage would pay your share, up to the limit of coverage you select. You should review the need for this coverage with your agent and buy an appropriate amount of coverage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Your best bet is to check with your ins agent or broker.

Good luck!

Thanks for responding. I did call my insurance agent and all they could say was open a claim and we will send out the adjuster. They couldn't tell me what to submit, nothing. I have Liberty Mutual. I have coverage for it. I thought with all the Sandy damage, that someone might be able to speak from experience.

From my experience with insurance companies, they view each claim as unique. They will not commit to anything until an adjuster has had a chance to survey the loss and issue a report. This is a neutral process - the adjuster may find issues which will increase your reimbursement(s).

Suggest you follow their procedure, submit a claim in their requested format, and see what happens. If, after the adjuster has visited the site and issued her/his report, they will ask for additional information if they need it. Submitting a claim sounds like it's the only way to get the ball rolling.

This is just from my experiences. Others may have different advise.

I like your idea of removing those ugly ceiling tiles and cleaning up and painting the pipes. Have you tried to removed one to see what's going on up there? It sounds like your leaning for removing them. I'd go for it. Good Luck.

I agree with PC1, go ahead and remove the ceiling. I've not heard of any laws about the legality of a drop ceiling in the basement, but I'm sure removing it will not cause any headaches.

In case you're not aware, there are some color-coding and labeling requirements for exposed infrastructure. For instance, all pipes that carry water for your sprinklers and other fire suppression services must be painted red. All natural gas pipes need to be labeled every so many linear feet (yellow stick-on labels are available for this). Your property manager should know about these requirements and help you with them.

I found this link which sort of explains when a licensed plumber is needed and when she isn't. http://www.borismechanical.com/ask-a-nyc-plumber-do-you-need-a-permit-to-upgrade-your-plumbing. The kinds of jobs you describe, in-the-wall pipe issue and toilet lead bend probably fall under the category of "simple repair".

But this does not answer the question about the quality of your super's work. And a plumbing license is no guarantee of high quality. If you are a shareholder, unless an emergency situation exists, I think you can refuse to let the super perform the work. It will then become your sole responsibility to hire and pay someone who you feel is qualified.

Have you asked your neighbors if they've had the same experiences? Have you and your neighbors provided your board with examples of the super's shoddy workmanship and any expenses you incurred as a result of the work? If you and enough other shareholders can document multiple instances of inferior workmanship and collateral damages and expenses, hopefully the board will listen.

When you try to find a definite answer about when a licensed plumber is required, there are only a few specific instances; sprinkler system, gas lines, jobs that require permits, etc. It becomes a judgment call as to when the super can make the repair and when an outside plumber is required. You always have the option of running for the board and helping to change its judgment.

Steven you spend so much time answering questions here and I would like to know if you serve on a board. I find your answers to posts rather queer. Like the time you told me I should have invited the super over for a beer after he had pulled a fast on. This makes no sense to me at all. You don't bother to ask what I have done to salvage the situation, and I can assure you it is a one way street. Invite him over for a brew? Very bizarre response as far as I am concerned. Your reply re pluming in the walls to another poster was also rather odd. The envelope, come again. If it is in the wall it is a coop responsibility PERIOD. I am going to ask you to refrain from answering any other posts of mine because I just find your responses rather odd. The only thing I would like to know from you is, do you serve on a board or are you a managing agent?

Thank you, MK you took the words right out of my mouth.

It is about inside the wall plumbing - (not larger jobs that might require permits.) Anything you have to open the wall up for - requires a licensed plumber in NYC. That is the law. If it is a washer change for a dripping faucet replacing a sink or etc. - outside the wall - then the Super can legally do it. But alteration agreements in cooperatives as well as the Law require licensed plumbers for pipes and parts , etc inside walls.

You are very welcome I am tired of the gibberish, I get enough of it from the BMs and MA. Also you may notice that there is another person who often likes to concour to all of his posts. In one response he told me that the MA is not a fiduciary, I don't like arguing the facts so I left it along. I have been living a nightmare here that is book worthy and should be required reading before purchasing.
But I do appreciate your response because it lets me know that you are an intelligent person who has their eyes wide open. Absolutely refreshing, so I want to thank you also
Sincerely Mary

I've served on my board for the last nine years, eight as treasurer. I'm not a managing agent.

@MK: When I suggested you "invite your super in for a beer", I really thought you would take it figuratively, as in kindness begets kindness. You took it literally, as in handing the super a Bud Light. My mistake.

As for walls and "envelope", this next quote is taken verbatim from our proprietary lease, "18. (a) The Lessee shall take possession of the the Lessee apartment and its appurtenances and fixtures "as is" as of the commencement of the term hereof. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 4 hereof, the Lessee shall keep the interior of the apartment (including interior walls, floors and ceilings, but excluding windows, window panes, window frames, sashes, sills, entrance and terrace doors, frames and saddles) in good repair...". This is why I differentiated between the envelope (exterior) walls and the interior walls, because that's how our PL defines things.

If your PL or your board has a different interpretation, great! I was simply offering my co-op's practices as a point of reference. Because there is a lot riding on Co-op vs shareholder responsibility and where one ends and the other begins, the term "envelope" neatly sums up the lines of demarcation.

One of the main benefits of a forum like this is to share best practices. Readers are free to decide what best fits their particular situation and apply what they want. I don't dictate to anyone what they should or should not do, I suggest based on what's worked for me and my building. I also do not tell other forum participants what they can and cannot respond to. Your mileage may vary.

I only wanted to know your position and don't appreciate the back peddling. You should have a non bias person read your response. It was more of an admonishment which should have been directed at the super and the management who approved the arrangement. I would never have let him step one foot into my apartment if I knew management was not willing to stand behind his work. But they approved it and encouraged it. If a super is not vetted then he should not be performing this type of work in our beautiful prewar building. The building is springing leaks like a seive because of damage caused by the previous super. I have been a victim of 5 of these. The woman above me is pulling her usually routine, creative sounds effects on her hardwood floors. But the rules don't apply to her because of her romantic involvement with the board president/slash treasurer. The scratching scraping banging has just begun and may continue for hours. I may go up there and knock on her door to determine what exactly she is doing. If the answer is in satisfactory I will be calling the police. I had them here yesterday and they are fully aware of the situation and want me to call the minute they start in. So I must go now in a attempt to salvage my quality of life. Good bye