It's none of their business. The shareholder could have other property out of state where they are registered, with lower insurance costs, etc. All that matters is that the car is registered, and insured. How, where, why is none of the Board's interest or business. The Coop insurance should not have any particulars on where a car is registered. All they care about is that it is properly insured while on the property. Once again, this is just Board busybodies at work, and overstepping their duties. There is an overabundance of Board members who substitute facts and knowledge for personal opinions, attitudes, and prejudices.

If the shareholder in question has become a resident of New York State our understanding is the DMV typically requires that person to register his/ her vehicle in New York within 30 days.
Should the cooperative documents contain a provision that requires the shareholder does nothing illegal on co-op property, as our properties do, the 90 day timeline to register the vehicle in New York would seem appropriate on its face.
Should the shareholder be permitted maintain two residences---in this case, one in New York and one in another state---and the out-of-state address is the shareholder's primary residence, it then would seem the co-op's 90 day registration requirement is not appropriate.

this seems very strange to me. if it's not a requirement in the house rules or the proprietary lease, they shouldn't have to do it. if it's in the house rules and they received them/signed that they read them prior to closing, they would have to do it, no matter how bizarre it seems to be.

Dear Jill,

I am a co-op president in Manhattan. Since voting for co-ops is by shares of stock, and if all of the others units have approximately the same number of shares as your unit, it sounds like they will soon have an 80% majority (4 out of 5 units). Unfortunately, it sounds like the battle is lost. My suggestion to you is to hire a lawyer, get the highest price you can, the best move out terms you can and then sell.

If you think about it, do you really want to live in a building with yourself as the only occupied unit?

Sincerely,

Steve

i just moved back from CA with my young kids and i don't want to move again. its a commercial co-op. i don't really care who lives here i just want to stay, moving is a huge project and my kids are finally settled in their home.

Hi

I am a superintendent on the east side looking for a Westside building.

I have 16 years of experience, I am a person of good integrity and very reliable.

joserivera124@hotmail.com

The bracket regulations are specifically concerned with AC window units that can fall if the window is opened. It is not concerned with through-the-wall units in sleeves that cannot fall, or permanently installed window units where the windows and AC unit are screwed, barred and blocked. The brackets are designed to be attached to the window frame and function as a support independent of, and entirely separate from the function of the window itself. Window sleeves are entirely an internal issue of the coop as to installation through the brick-face and structure in a manner such that it does not allow water to enter to fascia and damage the wall by causing leaks etc. internally. size and uniformity are a cosmetic issue, not a structural issue.

the co-op can regulate size etc of sleeves, or even not allow someone to make a hole and install all as long as it's not arbitrary and there's sound reasoning behind the rule.

And I thought we had problem shareholders in our building!

I assume since the suit is against these three shareholders that you took steps to protect the corporation. I noticed from the article where the suit states the three weren’t authorized to write on behalf of the whole co-op. This is absolutely correct. It constitutes misrepresentation, and you are lucky the suit wasn't directed at the corporation.

The three shareholders are also subject to a suit from the coop. Do you plan on filing one against them?

In any event, a lesson is to be learned from the reckless action that they took. These matters should be handled by the board, and under legal counsel. Please keep us all updated on the outcome.

The women in the article is the coop president. She has all the rights to write the sponsor/developer and have them be responsible for the millions of dollars of construction defects the building has. I admire her for speaking up and trying to save her building some money and Donald Capoccia, BFC Development need to be held accountable that they have left homeowners who thought they were buying something affordable accountable. This is not affordable housing and this developer has a horrible track record. Unfortunately, he's a large donor to Gov Andrew Cuomo & Deblasio. Attorney Generals office needs to do something but they seem to have turned the other way, even though their real estate division has so many complaints about the same developer...you would think they would do something.

It is not clear which woman you are referring to, but neither one referenced in the article ever held the position of board president.

A request to all: Please double check the accuracy of your information before posting.

The building has millions of dollars of construction defects. The ppl in the article sit on the coop board. Who care what there real role is the man point is the developer has constructed a building which has leaks, defects and also has left other buildings in NYC with the same crappy problems. People can't afford to be living in some building where there maintenance goes up large amount to fix repairs caused by crappy construction. Coops should not have to taken out loans to make repairs due to bad construction by developers like Donald Capoccia. At least these women are speaking up and the corruption continues at HPD.

This subject came up in conversation the other day and I discovered I have a colleague who knows someone who was on the board of this building. Apparently, the Daily News article tells only part of the story.
The three people being sued were on the board. The woman interviewed in the article is also on the local community board 11, of East Harlem. The building board was in the process of writing to city agencies, seeking help for construction defects. The woman who's also on community board presented a letter which she claimed CB11 wrote on her behalf. The building board reviewed this letter, but voted to reject it as being too hostile.
The three people in question then took this letter around the building for signatures, and sent it out anyway, without knowledge or approval of the full board.
This action raises many questions; when board members showed up at people's doors with a letter on corporation letterhead, it would stand to reason that residents would assume it was a board effort. Unbeknownst to them, this defiant act placed the corporation under possible serious liability.
When the rest of the board learned of this, they took legal action by serving the three with a letter of censure. In my opinion this was the wisest move they could make to protect the corporation.
The article was clearly intended to gain public sympathy, but there is a serious lesson to be learned here: board members should never assume to act on their own. Like it or not, we must abide by majority vote. As I mentioned in my previous post on this subject, once the board takes a stance, it must act together, and under legal counsel in certain instances. It was incredibly lucky that this was caught in time, as the corporation could have been sued. The censure leaves no protection for the reckless action that these three people took. They don't even qualify for the insurance normally afforded to board members, and the flimsy claim about civil rights violations is laughable.
Side note: I also learned that none of these defendants suffered from leaks due to construction.

While what SFC stated is PARTIALLY true, it is not complete. The person on the Community Board is the one that thought of trying to get help from the Board and local political people and explained that to the Board. The Board was in favor in the beginning and then there was a meeting of many shareholders with a committee at the Community Board. At that meeting they were told to write a letter to HPD and others and the Board helped and wrote the letter for the shareholders. The then building board was very divided and chose not to go along with the Community Board letter and basically nix everything and go it themselves, so basically riding on the coat tails of the 3 members who thought of getting help. Where this article is wrong, is that all the shareholders knew the member of the Community Board and went along with that member, knowing that member had more connections then the 4 building members. It was not written on Letterhead as was mentioned and it was signed by Concerned Shareholders.
Whether you are a shareholder, board member or whatever, you have a right to file a complaint. The censure was a waste of money and time, anyone can file a complaint. The shareholders of the building backed the letter that Community Board wrote and clearly knew about it. Again, it was not on corporation letterhead. The people knew the division of the building board, no person assumed anything.
So again, the statement from SFC not completely factual. Many facets to this issue.

I did some checking and yes, the letter in question was written on the letterhead of the coop. This is a detail mentioned in the complaint that was filed, and considerably changes the dynamics of the action these people took.
Yes, anyone can register a complaint. Anyone can contact their elected officials. But we're talking about three members of a coop board acting against a majority vote.
Ismith, I find your logic somewhat flawed. This is a forum for board members to both seek and give advice pertaining to particular issues. The intent is to enable board members to act in the best interest of their corporation. Clearly, members who act arbitrarily, against majority vote, and without the knowledge of their peers, are not acting in the best interest of the corporation.
These three people put their corporation at great risk of liability. They misrepresented their shareholders when they, as members of the board, circulated this letter, on letterhead. They then misrepresented the corporation when they sent it to city agencies, without the knowledge of the other board members.
Kudos to them for recognizing the possible consequences, and taking the legal action that they did. In doing so, they protected the corporation. Now, the three rogues are on their own, to answer for their reckless action, without the insurance protection normally afforded to a board that acts as a board. The legal fees alone can be serious and Board Talk is hardly the forum to condone and/or encourage this type of behavior. Better that all on this forum learn a lesson by this. Thank you.

To SFC:

Once again not sure where you get your information. It was NOT on Letterhead, clearly you don't know what the Letterhead looks like. These 3 were members, but also are Shareholders, which is the way the letter was signed. Also, the letters sent to agencies were basically identical, from the Shareholders, the Community Board and the 4 Rogue board members who chose not to get help from the Community Board and sabotaged the issue. Just in case you are not familiar the 3 that you are speaking of had the contacts that were trying to help. The 4 did not, it was a control issue, a divided board. The 4 members grabbed on to the coat tails of the 3 that suggested getting help. The shareholders in the building were on the side of the 3, just in case you weren't aware of that. The majority vote is the way the shareholders feel, they are the majority of the building. They know who had the contacts and who was trying to get results. Propaganda and sabotage was what transpired with the 4 members. Where is the best interest? One of the 4 members tried to contact the people the Community Board member knew and never received a response. The Community Board member kept getting calls asking "Who is this person"? What does that say? So instead of letting it play out with the people who had contacts, they needed the control and caused this fiasco. You can say or believe what you choose.

Just want to comment FrankieD, he is absolutely correct. Who cares what role anyone played, the ISSUE is the Building was left with defects and many, many leaks that people of lower to moderate means had to and have to pay (via loans) to have fixed. Who does anyone think has to pay those loans back? People bought these apartments in good faith through a City Program and the developer received tax breaks, etc.
When you want to file a complaint, you go to the City. You are correct FrankieD.

The Cooperative has an effective lease with the Shareholder (Prop Lease). There is no relationship at all between the Cooperative and the Subtenant (illegal or legal).

The Cooperative would need to start an action against the Shareholder to cure the breach of the Proprietary Lease and to allow an opportunity for the Shareholder to cure the breach prior to the cancelation of the Proprietary Lease through those legal actions.

The Cooperative can't void the subtenant's lease and throw the subtenant out. It has to go through the proper legal process with the Shareholder. I would speak with your Coop's attorney to begin the action. All breaches that require legal action should have a provision that the costs associated will be billed back to the Shareholder that is the offending party.

Hope that helps.

Committees are what you make of them. They can be a selection of Board member or one Board member and all others Shareholders. Some buildings, I'm sure, have committees that are made up on entirely Shareholders without a board presence.

A committee is useful because it makes it easier to break down the large amount of work in between meetings and can ease the burden on the rest of the Board. The committee has no power to vote for the Board, their power lies in their recommendations to the Board and then the Board makes the final decision based on the research or experience of the committee.

Short answer, a committee can be any flavor that the Board wishes.

Hi,

I live in a building that draws people transitioning from “rentership” to ownership. To me, owning, involves taking responsibility for what goes on inside my unit. It’s similar to owning a car – the systems in a unit need occasional maintenance and they need to be inspected with that in mind.

In my opinion and while the heating system is the responsibility of the co-op, as an owner and with the greater responsibility taken upon oneself with that status, if one sees damage and doesn’t report it (or should have seen that damage), they are at least partially responsible.

I would say charge at least charge half to the unit above and let them claim it on their insurance.

Steve

Steve, I disagree profusely with you. While owning a 'condo' means you actually own real estate, investing in a 'coop' means you are part (or partially an) owner of the entire building. Coop investors don't actually 'own' real estate. So, that being said, the building as a whole should be responsible for a state of good repair. And, to me, that means that if anything not readily or easily available for visual inspection should be responsibility of the corporation (coop). If you own your car that's one thing - if you 'lease' your car - as you do in a coop - the agency you purchased a lemon from should be responsible. I'm a BOD member.

Chetrit Sold $1.6M Condo Full of Mold and Mice, Resident Claimshttp://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140324/midtown/chetrit-sold-17m-condo-full-of-mold-mice-resident-claims-lawsuit
""They defrauded me," Schottenstein, who has the autoimmune disease lupus and cannot enter the apartment without wearing a surgical mask, told DNAinfo New York. "This was supposed to be all new plumbing, new electrics, new mechanics. And that was not the case."

Chetrit Sold $1.6M Condo Full of Mold and Mice, Resident Claimshttp://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140324/midtown/chetrit-sold-17m-condo-full-of-mold-mice-resident-claims-lawsuit
""They defrauded me," Schottenstein, who has the autoimmune disease lupus and cannot enter the apartment without wearing a surgical mask, told DNAinfo New York. "This was supposed to be all new plumbing, new electrics, new mechanics. And that was not the case."