This situation is complicated. My first thought is that you state in the first sentence that you declined to use an outside contractor. This implies this is a renovation. That would normally require your contractor to have insurance.

Your super did not have insurance, and I don't think the co-op's insurance would cover his work because he did a renovation, which I think is beyond the scope of the co-op's normal insurance coverage - even if the MA gave the okay. The problem is that YOU knew he wasn't a licensed contractor, yet you still agreed to let him do contractor type work.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, only a Board member, so take my opinion for what it is.

My second thought is that you hired a guy who has a grudge against you. This is an accident waiting to happen, and it did. It sounds like you wanted to save a few $$ by using the super, but this super had it in for you. Not a good game plan.

You're now at the point where the work has been corrected by a real contractor. That's the most important thing. It's your home.

As far as suing, I think you might win something, but certainly not everything you want to recoup. I don't believe your case shows a clear cut victory for you because you agreed to let a non-contractor do contractor type work.

That opens up a can of worms because I think a judge will say that knew that before he started the job. Even if the MA said he's qualified, you're the guy that hired him, so I think a judge would hold you accountable for your decision.

Also consider the court costs of suing in a case where you definitely have some liability. Thats a factor, too.

I don't know how much $$ you had to spend in total, but I think this is one of those situations where you should chalk it up to experience and let it go, even if it cost you some money. Life is too short.

The work has now been done correctly. Consider that $$ well spent. In the future, only use a licensed contractor for renovation work, and keep your contact to a minimum with the super. Let him in your apartment to do only the basic necessities. The co-op is responsible for those types of repairs and upkeep.

I might suggest that if the super is coming to your apartment for any needed repairs, you should take a video of the area to be worked on BEFORE the super does his work. Just in case he has any type of ulterior motives to do you wrong. It can't hurt.

Good luck to you, and I'm sorry for your troubles.

I did not hire an outside contractor for several reasons. They tried talking me into things I did no want. I was also told that what I wanted done was impossible. I did all the work myself and I will be 60 this August. It consisted of all new appliances and I needed plumbing work because I was installing a dish washer. I removed 2 layers of tile the glue was so thick it was like playing with mud pies. I leveled some dips in the floor with wood filler rather than the carcinogenic self leveling compound that a contractor recommend. I removed old cabinet doors and sanded an painted them. I purchased an unfinished cabinet so I could paint it to match. I removed the draw and turned it into a sink front tray, and cut out a section of the back for plumbing. All I need from him was plumbing and to cut my butcher block countertop. The MA gave the go ahead for him to do the plumbing. If they can not stand behind their employee them they should not recommend him. I had no idea he was uninsured in fact maybe he is insured. Why would a MA allow an unlicensed individual do this work. It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I am the victim and I find his behavior unacceptable and in fact criminal. Contractors who walk off the job and rip people off are criminals and that is a fact. I am the victim and you are in effect "blaming the victim". It is not all about the money and saving a buck either. Several years ago I paid a contractor for a complete rip out of my bathroom it cost 10 thousand and it looks great. I could have hired the super for that job ( a different one who was fired) he wanted the job but when I discussed it with him he did not seem to know what he was doing. I could have "saved money" if I hired him, but I did not. All I needed was a little help with plumbing something I don't do and don't want to do. For any MA or board to allow an employee to continuously do side jobs and recommend them for these jobs without any guarantee is ludicrous. The MA and board are fiduciaries. Allowing an employee to do this is a complete failure in this regard. He did it during regular business hours and it appears to me that they are working on his behalf instead of mine. Also offering him this side job was that same as offering him a fig leaf, he took it snapped it in half and threw it in my face. Excusing this behavior because he has a grudge REALLY! I am sorry to say that I completely disagree with your point of view, but you are entitled to your opinion. So I guess we can just agree to disagree. Yet I do appreciate that you took the time to give it consideration and provide a response
Thank You

First lets get a few legalities out of the way, even though I am not a lawyer. Only board members are considered fiduciaries and they owe their fiduciary responsibility to the co-op corporation. The MA is an agent of the corporation and the board is responsible for their actions. If you have a beef with the MA you need to address it to the board. Same with the super. He is an employee of the corporation. Any problems need to be taken up with the board.

You may have received a recommendation from the MA and they may have approved your alteration (dumb without an alteration review or any form of pre-alteration oversight), but you contracted privately with the super. The MA had no involvement at all in the transaction. It is your responsibility to sufficiently vette the super or any contractor who performs work for you.

In your original message you said that the super had performed satisfactory work for other shareholders. As far as the MA was concerned, there were no red flags that would prevent them from making the recommendation. If the MA were to assume any liability with regard to the super's performance, it should have been stated very clearly up front, and they would need to be compensated for taking on the risk. It doesn't sound like you had any agreement or guarantee in effect with the MA.

The fact that you tried to make amends by offering the super a paying job is admirable, and it's a shame that he didn't reciprocate. No one is excusing the super's behavior, but it sounds like you and he were flying at different altitudes. Did you say to the super anything to the effect that you realize there was bad blood between you in the past, but that you wanted to end the animosity, and would he be willing to accept a paying job from you. Did you give him any indication that the job was a de facto peace offering? Invite him in for a cold brew while the two of you discussed what you wanted him to do? If not, what lead you to believe the super had any idea about what you were thinking?

Hopefully you will remember this episode the next time you need work done in your apartment. Not all contractors are scam artists, most are on the very up and up. You will need to perform you due diligence by reading reviews and performance rating websites to learn about others' experience with perspective contractors. The red flags will appear pretty quickly.

Best of luck with future renovations.

No I did not invite him for a brew. I hired him to do a job. I treated him with dignity and respect. In return he was malicious. There is no excuse for his behavior. It is just that simple. Any other questions regarding what I may have done to make amends is irrelevant.
More to the point is why does the board and MA allow it. If he is not vetted to do the work wouldn't it be prudent to warn potential customers. Or better yet enforce co-op policy. But that is the dysfunction of co-ops. I feel like Alice in wonderland. Instead of pointing a finger at me and coming up with all the things I could have, should have, and would have done. I suggest you look at the situation in its entirety. Then come up with a could have, should have, would have list for the super, the MA, and the board.

I want to reinforce everything that Marty wrote. His answer is well stated and spot on. You are fortunate that this did not escalate into something more serious and that your apartment is back together.

hope you've solved this by now. if you haven't - this is a gross abuse by a board member. fire laws prohibit storing materials in a garage - we have had that situation and it was confirmed as a violation. by not addressing this your building is compounding the issue and endangering the other shareholders. shout it from the rooftops.

I'm NOT an attorney, so I'm not completely fluent in the law and court decisions.
However, as a board member for many years, what I have heard from other board members, managing agents, etc. is that you can charge fines but that most courts will throw them out if it gets that far. Unless there is a financial harm to the coop, such as receiving tickets for failure to recycle, building dept. violations for improperly installed a/c's or items blocking exits or on fire escapes, etc. you're not likely to collect any fines levied. Will a shareholder take you to court? Depends on the person and how much $$ is involved. And then you wind up with your own legal fees, which you can also try to pass on to them....

Thanks so much JG. That's what we have heard making enforcement of noise and other issues challenging.

@HabitatMag it would be great to hear from the experts!

We have had no issues with fines. No one has ever challenged them in court, but we have been consistent with their application.

For us, renovations are the biggest reasons for penalties because illegal renovations (done without submitting proper NYC issued licenses, insurance policies, and written details about the renovations) can jeopardize the safety of all residents.

We've told every shareholder about our rules so there's no miscommunication. It's worked out fine for us (no pun intended)

My original comments were addressing the original question regarding how courts respond to fines. We also have house rules and we do fine mostly for pet rule violations, failure to recycle, and we charge late fees as a % for maintenance and other charges not paid by the due dates. We require any planned alterations to be identified in writing in advance, contractors are required to obtain necessary permits, we verify contractor licenses and insurance as well and obtain a security deposit for cleaning and possible building damage.

I am also not an attorney. I've not heard anything about courts throwing out fines. I would think that the courts would be guided by the Business Judgment Rule unless the fine (or any other board action) violated any of the Co-op's governing documents or governmental regulation or law.

Best to check with your board's attorney for a more definitive answer.

You can decide to simply pay the $25, but you'll be putting yourself in serious financial risk. You mentioned two different types of insurance, dwelling coverage (casualty) and personal liability.

Personal liability protects you in the event someone sues you because they claim you were negligent and they were injured. Never mind the truth of their claim, you are being sued. How much do you think it will cost you to defend yourself against a negligence claim? How will you pay any judgment against you (which can run into the millions)? Consider the saying, "penny wise and dollar foolish."

As for casualty insurance, it is difficult to offer an opinion because the actual terms of the co-op's master policy are unknown. Try to get a copy of the policy and have an insurance broker look it over to see where your vulnerabilities are.

Steven 424,

Thank you for your advice.

As Steven424 noted, there are two issues here: (1) Does the Coop have the authority to compel shareholders to carry insurance; and (2) Is it in your interest to carry insurance?

As to (1) Check your proprietary lease. It is possible that the Coop's only way to impose financial costs on shareholder is through maintenance/assesments. Of course, challenging the insurance requirement would require you to get an attorney, etc.

As to (2) I think it's generally a good idea to be insured at least up to the value of the unit. But that's your call.

As a board member, we permit the unit owner to add a spouse to the lease, after being provided with financial data as if the second party were a buyer. We're looking to see that if the current owner were to pass, there is sufficient ongoing income (or financial reserves) available to continue with maintenance payments. We charge an application fee and the management co. charges a fee for share transfer. You should also speak to an attorney for guidance, since it can expose your property to claims made against your spouse, etc.. And check with your coop for their policy and fees.

According to the New York Cooperative Corporations Law item 75, Audit and annual report, this type of information should be available for inspection by any member. In other words, they may request that you come to the office to inspect the agreement versus giving you a copy of the agreement. I would put in a request to view the contract at a date and location of their choice as per article 75 of the New York Cooperative Corporations Law. You could add "or alternatively, provide me with a copy of the contract".

Ned, I do not believe that shareholders have a right to view individual contracts. Shareholders are entitled to a copy of the annual audit and financial report, which must be prepared using GAAP guidelines. The report only contains dollar amounts. It does not go into individual contractual details unless they deviate from standard terms and conditions and materially affect the finances of the co-op.

Also, many contracts contain competitive information that is proprietary to the vendor. It may contain specific terms regarding non-disclosure. When my building had a contract with a DTV service provider it contained a non-disclosure clause.

I'd like to point out something to be very wary about with cable contracts. Many require a certain number or percentage of building apartments subscribe. If the minimum number is not met, the co-op corporation is responsible for making up the difference in monthly fee income to the cable company.

This is the reason we never renewed our contract. We had a second DTV service provider wire our building so we had competition. I also knew that there were more and more ways individual viewers could obtain all the channels and services they wanted over the internet. Fewer and fewer each year were signing up with the cable companies for DTV service. It seems ludicrous to me to put the building at risk for multiple years to subsidize natural changes in technology.

I would ask your board if the contract contains any performance or minimum subscriber guarantees. If it does, you building may end up subsidizing the dwindling number of apartments who remain with Cablevision.

Hi Stephen; thanks for your thoughtful response however I do believe that shareholders can in fact view, if requested, (versus get a copy) any financial information and that includes contracts. A board is signing on behalf of all shareholders and if someone is signing on your behalf, you are entitled to view what has been signed.

I don't think that shareholder approval is needed. When we talked about this issue, it was treated as one of those Board decisions that would be made (like so many others) on behalf of all shareholders.

If there are any limits to the boards purchasing authority (i.e. over X amount requires shareholder approval) and the cost to implement sub metering is greater than this amount, then they would require shareholder approval. If there are no limits (or the cost is less than the limit), then they do not require shareholder approval.

Ned,

Thank you for pointing out this possibility. Our Board does not have any such limits, so we did not require prior s/h approval.

Hi Marty, it's something that your co-op may want to consider a Limits of Authority clause. That way shareholders have a say in expenses exceeding X amount. The clause is not to limit or restrict the board in as much as it is to ensure that shareholders are aware and support expenses exceeding a certain amount (and other items that could be included in a Limits of Authority clause).

Ned,

I understand what you're suggesting. Would you include an expensive roof and/or boiler repair as part of a Limits of Authority clause?

I see potential trouble if you do, because these things are necessary and must be repaired quickly. If "x" percent of s/h don't want to spend the money, then what does the Board do?

We also have a clause within Limits of Authority that allows the board in cases of emergency to proceed without shareholder approval, regardless of the cost. We further define what an emergency constitutes, i.e. immediate or impending risk to health, life, property, infrastructure, safety, security or the environment.

That makes sense. As far as getting shareholder approval on other types of projects, that seems to be possibly very time consuming and expensive, because the Board would then have to give out pertinent information to all shareholders so they are up on the details. Then there's the part of waiting for s/h feedback. How long does your Board wait? Is there a quorum of voters need to make this type of financial decision?

I guess our co-op feels that the Board is elected to make such types of decisions. If s/h aren't pleased with the Board's performance, then vote 'em out.

I've served on the Board for more than 20 years and there's never been a whiff of impropriety from the Board, so it hasn't been an issue for our co-op, although I could understand why some might think it's a worthwhile idea.

The newer, October 2014, NYSPSC regulations do not require a vote by the shareholders. It is up to the Board to decide on submetering. As a submetering company, with over 35 years of experience, who regularly works with Co-ops to get PSC approval, we know and follow the regulations. If your building is Master Metered, you will have no issues getting PSC approval. If you building is Direct Metered, your application has to have, at minimum, the intent to add some kind of back up power source such as solar or CHP, combined heat and power. Please feel free to contract us for a free walk through. We would be happy to provide information to the Board on the benefits of submetering.

The board can approve sub-metering without shareholder approval, although many boards may not want to take such a step without shareholder input. The Public Service Commission only requires Board approval, but they want proof that the shareholders have been property notified.

Thanks for all the input. It has been very informative. As I am a relatively new board member there are procedures that I'm unaware of. At my co- op there is a capital improvement committee (CIC) that has made arrangements for sub metering without the entire board voting. Should they proceed without bringing the matter before the entire board for a vote, what recourse do I have? Also, I believe the CIC is being advised by our attorney that this is legal. I disagree and if the committee continues on this route and has our building sub metered without a vote by the board in its entirety, can you inform me as to which agency I file a complaint against the attorney?

Thanks for all the input. It has been very informative. As I am a relatively new board member there are procedures that I'm unaware of. At my co- op there is a capital improvement committee (CIC) that has made arrangements for sub metering without the entire board voting. Should they proceed without bringing the matter before the entire board for a vote, what recourse do I have? Also, I believe the CIC is being advised by our attorney that this is legal. I disagree and if the committee continues on this route and has our building sub metered without a vote by the board in its entirety, can you inform me as to which agency I file a complaint against the attorney?

Unless the Board gave authority to the CIC to pursue submetering, I would suggest that the Board vote to approve the project. If nothing else, the optics to shareholders are better. Submetering saves the building money. It's been proven time and again. Some shareholders will pay more. Most will pay less. They ones that pay more will be vocal. It's much better for an entire Board to be behind the project than a subgroup.