That's quite a dilemma; on one-hand, I appreciate that the door is locked to prevent unwanted people from access to the building for security purposes (which has undoubtedly increased since the 20's) and on the other hand, emergency personnel require access to the building, promptly.

According to the New York Fire code, Section FC 506 "Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or firefighting purposes,
the commissioner may require a key box operable by a fire department standard key or other approved key to be installed in an approved location..."
I believe the key is a standard industry key carried by both fire and ambulance but you would have to confirm this.

You can review the Fire Code here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/firecode/2009/fire_code_ll26_2008_amended_ll37_41_64_2009_final_complete.pdf

Also, here is a very good article on what buildings should do to prepare for emergency services; it may help you position the requirement for change.
http://cooperator.com/article/what-to-do-before-the-emergency/full

NYC DOB regulations require access to the door bell/intercom 24/7. See if this is what you need - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/bldgs_code/bc27s6.pdf see page 11 of 22. Are you able to exit through the outer door without using a key when it is locked? That would be a building violation if you can't.

You seem very 'controlling.'
This has never ever been a problem in our coop. In fact, it is very convenient if you have a domestic partner you wish to cohabitant with you - or a nephew with a new job in NY, etc. It also helps defray the maintenance costs.
A landlord CANNOT approve the person or ask for anything (like the nature of your relationship) than their name. This protects privacy. It is a great law and it will not change so please just accept it.

DM - I'm glad it's working well in your co-op. I guess no one has abused the law. How can it be abused? How about this happening...

Within 2 weeks of the s/h getting a young man to be a roommate, a young woman (who is not the s/h, the roommate, or a relative of the roommate) was seen using a key at 830 AM to enter the front door of the co-op with a young man (who is not the s/h, the roommate, or a relative of the roommate) and then using a key to enter the apartment of the s/h who has the roommate.

10 days later, at 530 AM, the same young woman was seen again using a key to enter the front door of the co-op with 3 men - none of who is the s/h or the roommate. One of the man passed out (drunk or high) onto the lobby floor as soon as he entered our building. The other 2 men dragged his dead weight across the lobby floor into the elevator. Once again, these people exited the elevator - still dragging the unconscious man across the hallway floor - until the woman again used the key to enter the s/h apartment.

You call that controlling? I call that an abuse of the law and a real consequence that endangers the safety and security of our shareholders, since someone who is not the s/h or the roommate now has a key to our building.

What if a young mother with children or a senior citizen was in the lobby when this happened? They would have scared to death, and rightfully so. What kind of people come back at 530 in the morning? In Flushing they might be gangsters?

And the woman is NOT a relative of the s/h or the roommate. There's a good chance that this woman is a prostitute, using the s/h apt. as her brothel. That's because on 2 separate occasions, this woman brought 4 men back to the apt.

DM - would you be worried/afraid if you had witnessed these events? Do you think our co-op is overreacting and controlling, or is it possible that we are reacting to an obvious abuse of the Roommate Law?

I think that if this happened in your building and frightened someone in your family, you might not have such a condescending attitude towards a very real and potentially dangerous situation.

Now, just imagine if 20 other s/h went this route and we had all types of similar incidents. Like I said, I'm glad it hasn't happened to you, but please don't downplay the reality which truly threatens the safety of our s/h.

Roommate law aside, you need to confront your board member regarding the reported complaints and incidents and explain that if further complaints are received, you will be required to take action. I also think that as a board you are within your rights to suspend her board activity until the situation has been remedied.

In New York there is the so-called Bawdy House statutes — provisions in the New York State Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law — give a landlord, board of directors, law enforcement or even a neighbor the right to terminate a lease and initiate eviction proceedings against a tenant (or owner) who uses an apartment (or co-op) for an illegal trade, such as prostitution, drug dealing or gambling.

You don’t need a conviction — you just need enough evidence to convince a housing court judge that a tenant (or owner) was engaged in repeated illegal conduct at the premises.

A landlord (or board of directors) can also file a suit in New York State Supreme Court to get an injunction requiring some sort of action forcing the board member to evict their tenant and blocking s/h from engaging in further illegal acts.

Hopefully by you confronting the board member of possible outcomes (i.e. legal), she will re-think her roommate situation.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/real-property-actions-and-proceedings-law/rpa-sect-715.html

Ned - Thanks for your comment. I don't know how it is in Toronto, but here in NYC it's a very long, expensive, and drawn out process to take s/h to court. The worst part is that there's no guarantee of victory, even with documentation.

It's very frustrating because we have to protect our s/h and our investments.

But, we will start making life as uncomfortable as possible for this s/h if he keeps doing what he's been doing.

There's nothing on the books that tells us what actions might disqualify a s/h from being allowed to have roommates. Having said that, we are documenting anything and everything, so that if we do end up in court, we have all of the facts fully noted.

I don't agree with DM and do agree with Marty and the 1st person who wrote regarding this issue. Yes, it has been taken advantage of and when it was enacted in the 80's it basically was for people (boyfriend & girlfriend) living together, somehow it became ambiguous to say the least and does cause inherent problems in a co-op. In my co-op we have strangers constantly, a revolving door, sometimes it could easily be an AirBnb?? Not good.

Curious - Thanks for your comment.

We did confront this shareholder at the last Board meeting and surprised him with this info. He was unprepared and said "I wasn't home on the 2 times that the woman entered my apartment." How convenient and most likely true since we highly suspect that the s/h doesn't live in the co-op, which is one of the hardest things to prove in Housing Court.

One of the problems is that these types of things are very hard to prove, even with documentation. More importantly, judges in NYC are notoriously pro-tenant, even for cases involving co-ops.

But, I do agree that we will play hardball with this s/h and make him as uncomfortable as possible. We have taken him to court in the past for subletting. He's a real sleaze ball.

One of the potential issues with the Roommate Law, as I explained to DM, is that I think it's very rare in a co-op, in fact it's never been done before in our co-op.

Just imagine how many s/h would take a roommate in an effort to make extra bucks. I can easily see our co-op being overrun with strangers, which goes against everything that a co-op represents.

We can't change the fact that this law is on the books. But, we will enact more stringent screening and interview methods so we at least have some idea of who is in our co-op. The Board's job is to protect the safety and the investment of our shareholders, who have paid 6 figures for the privilege.

I work for a property management company in New York City and I will take a stab at this. I have worked with several co-ops where shareholders have in fact been charged for the cost of exterminating bedbugs. In every case I've encountered, the complaint was answered quickly with an exterminating visit arranged and coordinated by the management office. All neighboring apartments are treated at the same time as the one which called in to prevent further infestations.

Regarding the cost of bedbug extermination, affected shareholders have called my office and insisted the co-op handle the cost plenty of times. In one case, I was told by a shareholder that she would call 311 if it was not resolved, and absolutely refused to allow exterminators to enter unless the managing agent or Board of Directors promised it would be free for her. The board refused, and in the process of debating the issue, lost a few valuable days when the bedbugs could have been spread. Finally, the board gave in and shouldered the cost, although in an attempt to look strong, said it was only under the pretense that her neighbor had a prior infestation and was living in a severe hoarding situation where it likely started. A unified board would have demanded access, and by giving in here, I feel it opens itself up to future disputes on an issue that should be resolved without argument.

Please be mindful that this new management company likely does not want to manage from a place of weakness - bedbugs must be dealt with, not negotiated, and shareholders with ongoing infestations will be more inclined to clean up and toss away potentially infested furniture, etc. if they are charged for exterminating visits. Shareholders generally will decide on an exterminator based on price, and many if left to their own devices will shop around for a less-than-adequate service in my experience.

I have met exterminators privately who tell me the largest issue is the preparation work required by the resident - laundry, furniture, beds, and all types of materials need to be tossed/cleaned/treated or their chemical/steam treatments will be all for naught. A side industry now exists for "bedbug prep companies" because many apartments require serious preparation removal of furniture/upholstery, etc. for a successful bedbug treatment. A compromise some coops engage in is that the coop will pay for the exterminator if the shareholder pays for the bedbug prep company.

Although it is true that you did not bring the bedbugs in, the co-op legally can bill you back for the exterminating service.

I would pull out your copy of the prospectus and proprietary lease and read through them. Usually, the board has a fiduciary duty to follow the rules of the corporation, and a complaint can be made to the state attorney general's office, (or some other authority depending on the state you reside in), for failure to hold an annual meeting and/or elections. Are you receiving copies of the annual financial statements? You generally also have the right to review the minutes of board meetings, although you may have to read them at the management company's office. Encourage others to make complaints as well. If an election does present itself, run for the board!

The law (NY) says we must have annual elections, our by-laws says we must have annual elections, but we do not. Shareholders can kick and scream but in our co-op the board has the mentality of, "take us to court--if you can afford it and can survive the mental and emotional strains, and if you do not win and cannot get rid of us, we've make your life miserable" is enough to knock out any opposition. Unless it's a shareholders' class action law suit (which might be the next option in my co-op) nothing will happen. And in a co-op like mine where shareholders have been beaten back and bullied for so long the will to fight disappears leaving the pile of mess for all the "tomorrows" until bankruptcy come knocking on everyone's door. Knock! Knock!

In regards to the Minutes, with our current corrupt board, they write what they want and revise the text accordingly to their advantage. In NY, Minutes are prima facie evidence but what good is that when such evidence could be manipulated at will by the board for the board.

There is no law that specifically deals with co-operatives; in NY it's the BCL (Business Corporation Law) which does not fit the co-op's scenario; we do not produce products, goods, or services to make profits like a regular business corporation. Our income comes from the flip taxes fees and capital contribution from sales of apartments. Our co-op has a annual revenue stream of over $10m/yr; we have to sell a lot of apartments annually to make a profit or operate in the black. I've been seeing red shortly after we converted to a co-op. No, profit--we have been operating in the red, living off loans and going down hill. KNOCK! KNOCK!

The laws are weak (non-existing really for co-ops in NY), government assistant is nil, suing is an expensive unrealistic option, shareholders are too lazy and sometimes down right too stupid to care to engage in proper action, those that do care are in it for themselves, and the very few that are out for the common good, like me, are in it alone. (Now and then I get some help but at the slightest confrontation with the board they "cluck" away but expect you to keep taking the punches on their behalf!) Once I sell my co-op I will NEVER buy another co-op or a condo.

I completely agree with your overall sentiment that this is a ridiculously underegulated area. As for minutes, consider yourself lucky you can see them - even that is not required, and commonly witheld by boards:

http://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Co-op-Condo-Buyers/2011/2011-February/FAQ-Check-What-Are-Co-op-Owners-Rights-to-See-Board-Meeting-Minutes

It makes no sense to me that in NY, you need a license to give manicures, but there is no oversight whatsoever of boards or managing agents, despite the huge number of coop owners, and financial / quality of life impact when things are poorly managed.

I'm curious about what ever happened to this idea:

http://condocoopowners.org/
http://condocoopowners.org/forum-video/
http://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2010/08/coming_soon_to_a_co_opcondo_near_you_transparency_fair_play_and_accountability
http://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2011/01/dissent_brews_in_queens_over_tonights_forum_for_co_op_and_condo_owenrs

The main problem here does seem to be that shareholders haven't made the effort to lobby properly, so boards and management do whatever they like, safe in the knowledge that they won't be held to account.

Although there is much in the way of complaining and horror stories from shareholders on boards like this, streeteasy, etc,
I'm sure it would be far more effective if shareholders would cough up some membership fees to an organization to represent their interests, doing things like providing a decent website / publication, holding meetings, organizing the odd class-action lawsuit for egregious
cases, embarrasing the worst-of-the-worst boards / management organizations, etc. Ideally this might grow into some professionally run outfit (thing AAA, Consumer Reports, NRA), but failing that even some meetup group, informal monthly meeting, subreddit, etc might be a start.

I know this is a loathsome option, but it may be your last resort. An attorney will at least let you know what your options are, so you can evaluate if and how you want to proceed. Right now you are living under the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) being flung at you by the board. A good attorney should be able to work things from different angles without resorting to litigation. They may also back down very quickly if they perceive you are so fed up you're willing to resort to litigation remedies.

Remember that a board has a fiduciary obligation to run the corporation in a fair and reasonable manner and to put the interests of the co-op above their own, especially when it come to finances. If there is financial hanky-panky going on, the government *will* get involved and an attorney will be your best asset in dealing with the gov.

Talk to an attorney. It may be the best money you spend on this, and you may discover things are not as bleak as they seem.

Good luck,
--- Steve

This will be in the Corporation by-laws, which contains rules regarding the board's meetings, Annual meeting, special meetings, notice of meetings, etc.

If the board has been in for a long time, you probably know better than I do that they have their own system of meetings and handling business and will probably not look forward to another annual shareholders meeting. It's also the case that the presence of a well-established board will not inspire many shareholders to attend an annual meeting, causing a lack of quorum should they get one set-up.

Has the board been sending out notices announcing the annual meeting? There should be a legal affidavit certifying that eligible shareholders were mailed notices and given information on where and when to attend. If that has not been done, the board is clearly neglecting its duties.

If the notices were sent out, and not enough shareholders came in to establish a quorum, nothing that occurs at the meeting can be considered binding - depending on the bylaws, the board may have to have the meeting again in 2 or 3 months. If there is no quorum, often the board has the authority to hold their own elections and will vote themselves back in without shareholder input until next year. Bylaws allow for a special election to be called in many co-ops if shareholders representing 10% demand it, but it's probably easier for dissatisfied shareholders to communicate with the board directly or motivate people to attend the next one rather than go down that route.

There are plenty of Coops that have issues with their Board of Directors. Even though the building may hold Annual Shareholder's Meetings, there usually aren't enough shareholder's in the building that are concerned enough to get involved and make changes. We needed to hire an independent lawyer (the coop's lawyer do not assists shareholders, they work for the B.O.D.) because we also hadn't had a quorum for over 10 years. In fact, none of the shareholder's really understood how the election process actually worked. Ironically, the year we hired the lawyer, we had a true election with a new shareholder getting on the B.O.D. I highly recommend that you understand the total process and start informing other shareholder's in your coop. Then, if you truly want to make a difference, go door to door in your coop building and get as many proxies signed and run for the board!

I don't believe they are under any obligation to pay for alternate housing costs however, they are under obligation to keep the elevators in good working order so you should be pleased that they are. Here's a great article from Habitat regarding what buildings can do to ease the situation. Find out if your building is making any of these plans. http://www.habitatmag.com/Archive/295-December-2012/Elevator-Replacement

If a veteran or disabled, you would have to check with those authorities. Here is the link for Disability Rights New York http://www.drny.org/
phone (518) 432-7861

Ned - Thank you very much for your quick reply and the information. We greatly appreciate it.

Evangelina,

I'm just a Board member, not an attorney. I don't believe that your ex has a legal right to stay in the apartment. Since the stock certificate has only your name on it, he has no legal claim.

It would be different if you were married and you died. As the spouse, he would have the right to stay. But since this is not the case, I don't think he can stay if you don't want him to.

Definitely speak to an attorney on this one. You'll need some solid legal advice. But, I think you'll like the outcome.

I suggest that you get a copy of the your Rules & Regulations to see if they can in put charges such as repairs caused by a unit or any legal fees in regards to for example overdue accounts, by-law violations requiring legal advice or assistance etc. We have a clause which states that we can. They may as well.

what do we do?

Fortunately, in most cases this is illegal.
If you have a clauses allowing unfounded charges to be imposed. in your prop lease then that leaves things open to abuse by board members. Bad idea.
Our board habitually abuses it then wastes money in legal fees with shareholders who actually know their rights.

I never said that the clause allowed for "unfounded charges". What the clause allows for is costs that are incurred in the collection of arrears or any (common area) repairs that are caused by damage by either the shareholder or anyone occupying their suite.

If it's a repair to the building that the co-op at large has to pay for and if the co-op does not have sufficient funds in reserve to pay for those repairs, then those costs are past onto the share-holders. Furthermore, if those repairs are in excess of $20,000, the shareholders must vote on that repair.

In the prior talk message from Ned in Toronto; I'm curious, in which governing document does it state, "If repairs to a coop building area is in excess of $20,000, the shareholders must vote on the repair"?

Hello Deborah,
It's in our buildings Rules & Regulations under a section specific to board operations. "Limits of Authority". We recently amended it to allow for the board to make immediate decisions for expenses over $20K if it was an emergency situation that had an immediate or impending risk to health, life, property, infrastructure, safety or the environment. We then defined what an emergency situation constitutes and for example, no heat in multiple units, multiple frozen pipes etc. Shareholders must be informed of the emergency expenditure (>$20K) within 4 business days of the occurrence.
Ned

Ned,

That $20K number is news to me. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe it depends upon where you live.

Here in NYC, our Board has never had any restrictions like the ones you describe. If something needed repairing, we went ahead and fixed it without limitations. After all, that's the job we were elected to do.

I wonder if that's a Toronto vs. NYC difference?

A. “It is impossible to determine the validity of the fee without knowing the content of the letter and the terms of the co-op’s proprietary lease,” said attorney Michael T. Manzi of the New York law firm of Balber Pickard Maldonado & Van Der Tuin, PC. “Many proprietary leases include a provision that permits the co-op to charge a tenant/shareholder for the co-op’s legal fees if the tenant/shareholder is in default and the co-op brings an action or proceeding for the default. If the co-op’s proprietary lease includes such provision and no other provision pertaining to attorneys’ or other fees, then the co-op may not charge a fee for the letter unless the letter constitutes a notice of a default under the proprietary lease and the co-op brings an action or proceeding against the tenant/shareholder. Some proprietary leases include broader provisions, however, that would permit the board to charge such a fee.


“Even if the fee is valid, it is poor practice to impose the fee on some shareholders but not others and in some cases such practice would remove the board’s action from the purview of the business judgment rule. However, there may be something different in this situation that caused the board to impose the fee. Regardless, the tenant/shareholder should write to the managing agent and request a justification under the terms of the proprietary lease for charging the fee and inquiring as to why the board imposed the fee against her but not others.”

There is a difference between "illegal" and "unfair". Have you checked with an attorney to determine if the charges are really of the illegal variety? If they are, the same attorney should be able to advise you about what courses of action are open to you.

If the existing board has a history of adding unfair charges, the best remedy is to vote to replace the board at the next annual meeting. You eliminate all future charges and can decide to make restitution for previous charges that were not fair or discriminatory.

I am a shareholder whom purchase shares in a cooperative building. When I purchased my shares I wasn't married. I am now facing a divorce, and my ex husband wants to stay living in my apt. Or demands have of the property worth. The shares were never transfer to the married name. Does he have any rights to receive monies if I sell?

I am a shareholder whom purchase shares in a cooperative building. When I purchased my shares I wasn't married. I am now facing a divorce, and my ex husband wants to stay living in my apt. Or demands have of the property worth. The shares were never transfer to the married name. Does he have any rights to receive monies if I sell?

Hello Evangelina,
I agree with Steve; you need to see a lawyer. In the state of New York assets acquired before marriage regardless of how acquired (inheritance, gift etc.) should be immune from distribution. In order to establish an asset as separate property, it must remain under the control of the spouse claiming it. This includes if you sell it and any appreciation. Based on your short description, he is not entitled to it. However, there are "if and or buts" which may apply and why you need to seek legal advice. Here is an informative document (highlight, copy + paste into your search bar) http://www.herjustice.org/assets/pdfs/TheBasicsSeries_English/Getting-a-Divorce_ENGLISH.pdf
All the best to you, Ned

I am a shareholder whom purchase shares in a cooperative building. When I purchased my shares I wasn't married. I am now facing a divorce, and my ex husband wants to stay living in my apt. Or demands have of the property worth. The shares were never transfer to the married name. Does he have any rights to receive monies if I sell?

I am a shareholder whom purchase shares in a cooperative building. When I purchased my shares I wasn't married. I am now facing a divorce, and my ex husband wants to stay living in my apt. Or demands have of the property worth. The shares were never transfer to the married name. Does he have any rights to receive monies if I sell?

I am a shareholder whom purchase shares in a cooperative building. When I purchased my shares I wasn't married. I am now facing a divorce, and my ex husband wants to stay living in my apt. Or demands have of the property worth. The shares were never transfer to the married name. Does he have any rights to receive monies if I sell?

Hi Evangelina - I sincerely hope you've hired (or will hire) an attorney to handle your divorce, and not try to do it by yourself or use some divorce-in-a-box or online means. If you don't have an attorney, you face far more potentially damaging consequences than those that come up in connection with your co-op.

If you don't have an attorney, get one. If you do have an attorney, the questions you are asking here should be directed to your attorney. If you don't have faith in your attorney's ability to answer, hire a new attorney.

I'm sorry if this is sounding very cold and unfeeling. I went through a divorce, with an attorney, and it was still a messy, aggravating affair. I shudder to think where I'd be now if I didn't have an attorney representing me.

Please remember that whenever you ask for legal advice in a public forum like this, the advice you receive will be worth what you pay for it.

My best to you,
--- Steve

What were you threatened for? What was the repair? Where was the repair?

I ask because as a shareholder, you can generally find your rights and responsibilities written out in the proprietary lease. The lease entitles you to live and enjoy the apartment with conditions regarding repairs, upkeep of the apartment, renovations, etc. The lease will explicitly say what you, as the "lessee" are expected to maintain and fix in your own apartment. In some cases, the co-op may fix an item in your apartment, such as a window, and will bill you back for it because in the proprietary lease it is stated as your responsibility. To be sure, I do not know what the repair was or if the window is your responsibility, I am only using this as an example.

As a general rule, you can be held responsible for damages to other shareholder's apartments and to the building. For instance, if your air conditioner is leaking and creating water damage to the brickwork and the walls of the apartment below, you can be charged for those damages. Similarly, if you are responsible for the bathroom toilet and it has a persistent leak, causing damage below, you can be charged for those repairs.

Regarding the "legal fees". Are you sure they are legal fees and not "late charges"? The management company should state clearly that it is a charge for paying late or tell you if it is a legal charge. Also note, if you were placed into legal collection for arrears, you can still be required to pay legal fees even if you do not reach court, for instance, if you work out a payment plan.

Because they are original building components and technically an extension of the rail/wall below them.

For the best price, get 4-5 quotes from contractors that are independent of your managing agent.