No they cannot.
Check Paragraph 6. "Changes in Terms and Conditions of Proprietary Leases" of your Proprietary Lease. Amendments must be approved by a supermajority of shareholders.

Thsnk You, I read paragraph 6. I'm confused, though, about the first part that mentions a two-thirds majority. When does that apply?

Thank means a 66% majority is needed to change anything in the proprietary lease.

Paragraph 6 mentions two-thirds for one lease issue, and three-fourths for another. I don't understand the former.

I'm wondering if there are any other co ops, other than the one I reside in, that has such a high sponsor ownership. Our sponsor(s) refuse to sell, so they still own 49% of the shares here. What percentages are the average in NYC?

Usually the two thirds majority is two thirds of all the shares in the building not just two thirds of those voting.

a supermajority of all shares is required to change anything in the proprietary lease. your lease may specific 66% for some items vs 75% for others.

In the co op in which I reside, we require 64% majority vote to make a change. We would have to call a special meeting and propose change. Unfortunately, since we have way too heavy sponsor control of shares, as they refuse to sell, we cannot achieve any change, yet. Good luck to all.

dbig:
For clarity, I'm not an attorney and consulting an attorney is always a good idea..
But based on past experience a grandfather clause is given or stated in a newer rule. In other words, to be "grandfathered" the rule should grant an exemption for something that previously existed. If not grandfathered, the rule is typically considered effective without exceptions when its adopted or whenever its effective date may be otherwise stated in the resolution adopting the rule.
As for a deliberate attempt to sabotage a sale: If you believe your rights were violated you should discuss the matter with your attorney.

From the moment a shareholder sends a complaint letter to the board, the coop is responsible and liable to resolve the issue/violation.

It doesn't matter that the shareholder is being perceived as a pain. The corporation, via the managing agent, must schedule an inspection of the apartment below to assess claimed damages - and try to defuse the situation.

Every shareholder has the right to renovate his/her apartment, without damaging other units.

What happens when the complaining unit makes incorrect statements and accusations and doesn't allow contractors in unit to correct or solve problem. just plays the victim role and demands job be shut down.

Was his unit inspected? Was damage caused?
Not allowing anyone in his/her unit can forfeit his claims. Your managing agent should document everything.

It would be best to seek legal counsel in those situations. I am not an attorney, but speak from past experience.

I’m not a lawyer either, but we have a shareholder who sounds EXACTLY like your downstairs character and our Board has been learning the hard way. It sounds to me as if you are on your Board? Bottom line is that documentation of everything is key, and since this interaction seems headed toward a legal interaction, that documentation must be performed correctly and consistently. Check the Proprietary Lease for the acceptable method of sending notices, typically a standard paper letter sent by certified mail. My advice is to print out two copies of each of the complainant's e-mails. Keep one copy in a file for later. Respond to each e-mail with typed hard copy letters referencing the e-mail specifics and send those letters by certified mail, return receipt requested. This way if your recipient gets the letter, you get proof of delivery, and if your recipient refuses delivery, you get your letter back as proof that you attempted delivery. Most leases are written such that the simple act of sending a certified letter is taken to mean it was received whether or not the recipient actually takes possession of the letter; this is so that people cannot simply claim no notification by refusing the letter. Keep a separate hard copy of your responses attached to the USPS postmarked certified letter receipt in a file for proof that you responded to the complainant. Restate the complainant’s issues in your responses and state what you need to do to resolve the issue, ie the superintendent needs to enter the apartment on a specific date and time to inspect this damage. Then when the complainant refuses to allow entry, send another certified letter documenting that refusal. Write these letters as if you are reading them out in court in front of a judge, as that is eventually what will likely happen here. Once you have several letters proving that you tried to resolve the issue by entering the apartment but faced refusal, notify the complainant that the Board is concerned that the complainant is obstructing necessary access to assess possible damage (his or her claim) and is placing others at risk (in the event that there really is substantial damage) and then send notice that the Board must force entry if necessary (at the complainant’s cost) to inspect and follow through. The Board has a right to enter with adequate notice, and a responsibility to enter if there is reason to believe that there is structural damage occurring to the building due to the renovation work. Documenting all of the communication is the difficult and time-consuming part and if it’s not done, you will regret it later in court. Note that e-mail is not very useful in Housing Court as it’s difficult to enter as evidence in a busy court and the complainant only has to say “I never received that e-mail”. One needs printed paper, and unless the Proprietary Lease specifically authorizes alternative methods of delivering notices, you will not have any hard evidence of your attempts to resolve this. Good luck.

I’m not a lawyer either, but we have a shareholder who sounds EXACTLY like your downstairs character and our Board has been learning the hard way. It sounds to me as if you are on your Board? Bottom line is that documentation of everything is key, and since this interaction seems headed toward a legal interaction, that documentation must be performed correctly and consistently. Check the Proprietary Lease for the acceptable method of sending notices, typically a standard paper letter sent by certified mail. My advice is to print out two copies of each of the complainant's e-mails. Keep one copy in a file for later. Respond to each e-mail with typed hard copy letters referencing the e-mail specifics and send those letters by certified mail, return receipt requested. This way if your recipient gets the letter, you get proof of delivery, and if your recipient refuses delivery, you get your letter back as proof that you attempted delivery. Most leases are written such that the simple act of sending a certified letter is taken to mean it was received whether or not the recipient actually takes possession of the letter; this is so that people cannot simply claim no notification by refusing the letter. Keep a separate hard copy of your responses attached to the USPS postmarked certified letter receipt in a file for proof that you responded to the complainant. Restate the complainant’s issues in your responses and state what you need to do to resolve the issue, ie the superintendent needs to enter the apartment on a specific date and time to inspect this damage. Then when the complainant refuses to allow entry, send another certified letter documenting that refusal. Write these letters as if you are reading them out in court in front of a judge, as that is eventually what will likely happen here. Once you have several letters proving that you tried to resolve the issue by entering the apartment but faced refusal, notify the complainant that the Board is concerned that the complainant is obstructing necessary access to assess possible damage (his or her claim) and is placing others at risk (in the event that there really is substantial damage) and then send notice that the Board must force entry if necessary (at the complainant’s cost) to inspect and follow through. The Board has a right to enter with adequate notice, and a responsibility to enter if there is reason to believe that there is structural damage occurring to the building due to the renovation work. Documenting all of the communication is the difficult and time-consuming part and if it’s not done, you will regret it later in court. Note that e-mail is not very useful in Housing Court as it’s difficult to enter as evidence in a busy court and the complainant only has to say “I never received that e-mail”. One needs printed paper, and unless the Proprietary Lease specifically authorizes alternative methods of delivering notices, you will not have any hard evidence of your attempts to resolve this. Good luck.

Parkside:
Based on your message, and all other things being equal, your board appears to have made a judgment error.

Parkside,

An amendment that was not validated by a vote cannot be included in the proprietary lease. That means that the new shareholders received the correct version.
A proprietary lease is given and signed by a new owner at closing. Amendments are issued to all shareholders after a vote was conducted in compliance to the governing documents (super majority 66% or simple majority 50%)

Your board should review this issue with the coop's attorney.

Guests of the board that participate in board meetings but do not vote may be liable and they should be added to the insurance that covers board members.

For volunteers that do not participate in board meeting but are in sensitive positions such as interviewing potential shareholders an attorney should respond to the question.

not-for-profit and co-op board are two different entities. co-op boards have insurance for members.

http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/liability-lessons/

The Co-op is responsible.

H.
Check the governing documents of your coop (Proprietary Lease: Repairs by the Lessee - usually paragraph 18.a)
This is where you would find the correct info for your coop. In some buildings, the coop is responsible, in others the shareholder is.

Thanks. I checked section 18(a) and it explicitly states windows are the
co-ops' responsibility.

Sorry, VP, you are correct. I did not realize that under some proprietary leases windows repairs, other than caused by resident damage, are not the Coop's responsibility. Especially as it sounds like they either need replacing or pointing and lintel work if water is leaking in.

i am the treasuer of a 30 unit condo that did a ton of work following Sandy. It is difficult as very few places give condo loans to associations and places that do like like NCB are very expensive and charge a lot of fees and payback is usually over ten years.

I would honestly start with finding a few good contractors and get some estimates even before you engage engineers.

Also are folks current in the maint and do you know if folks have equity in their units. After Sandy we now have several units no longer paying maint. The trouble with the loan. Is you could borrow with assumption 11 folks will be paying it back and find out only 7 are chipping in as maint went up.

Also is this just pointing work or is balconies and windows included? Big difference difference. Also read your offering plan very carefully and dont assume something is a building responsibility when they are not. I was suprised in my building windows and balconies and doors are owners resonsiblity. Nearly all condos that is condo associations job. .

Thank you, CondoGuy1! We can just contact contractors, but I'm not sure how to get quotes from them when we don't know everything that needs to be done--we know there is repair work above street level, and roof work, but don't know the extent of it. Do you have any thoughts on how to get a quote when we aren't building-savvy and can only see the tip of the iceberg of building issues? And the issues are structural, not windows or balconies. Also, did your building in fact get a loan? We are assuming we can get one but we have yet to look into the criteria/costs involved. Please feel free to email me back at charaa@aol.com, I so appreciate the benefit of your experience--I'd be happy to speak on the phone if that's more convenient for you. Best wishes, Marin

We just did quite a bit of work for Local Law 11. Our architect recommended contractors, all of whom were well above our price range. we did our own search and ended up saving close to half. If you would like to give me your email, I would be happy to message you with the names of those contractors and what we thought of them. Our work is now down and while our experience wasn't seamless, saving $100K made the few small issues seem like nothing.

Thank you! My email is charaa@aol.com, and I'd be happy to hear any info about the contractors, or to speak by phone and take notes on your experience, whatever is easier and less of an imposition on you. I look forward to hearing back! Marin

hello, just sent you a message with info. if you want to chat, respond and leave me your number!

This is complex and involved major piece of work that has to be done correctly and certified. There is absolutely no point in going to a contractor without having a clear set of specs and plans in place. The answers you will get will be worthless, and likely cost you many times what you think it will cost.

The work involved covers: parapets, caps & copings, drainage, masonry, pre-cast sills, lintels, facade cracks, cutting & caulking, Terra-Cotta repair and sealing work. This can include, as in our building, the fact that the original mounting straps holding the T-C to the facade were pulling away from the building, necessitating an expensive and carefully engineered process and design solution for dismantling, replacing corroded straps with new SS straps, and re-installation. Then there are the fire-escapes, windows and sealants, roof inspection, elevator head/housing, gutters, pointing and ironwork.

There are architects and Engineers who both specialize in this work. They will have to do a very close inspection, photograph everything, and draw up detailed plans, devise the exact specs on how it will be dealt with, the products to be used, especially if they have to replace bricks and mortar that needs to match, and be knowledgeable in how a building constructed at the time yours was, was actually built.

There are three phases to the Architect's job: P1 - the site inspection and the specification work, the analysis and design documentation and technical drawings, bid documents and refereeing the site surveys by bidding contractors (on-site scheduled meetings) bid review, and advisement on selection and negotiations. P-2 is: the on-site inspection of the work being done by the contractor (how many visits you will require them to make for each significant type of work) and any additional on-site discoveries and solutions, or for that matter the Architect requiring them to redo work they have completed as insufficient, improperly executed, etc. not extensive enough, or the Contractor finding things and going to the Architect and saying you missed this, or we have found hidden damage you could not have foreseen etc. (they need to work well together). You need the Architect o see and approve all replacement bricks and mortar to ensure a proper match). The end of this phase is the Architect's sign-off on the Contractor's job. P-3 is: the Architect's final report and inspection notes, certification and stamps to the DOB and their inspection, with the Architect of the job.

You will probably have to put up a bridge on the street side of your building. That is expensive, so do everything you need to and do everything preventative as well. Spend the money once. P1 - a couple of years back ran us $15K, P2, $4,500, and P3 $2.5K, the bride alone was $20-25K on a 6 story street side facade (rest of building is 7 stories/30 units. facade work ran us about $135K We had to do this twice in a 5 year period because of storm damage. Without a plan in hand, the variables that Contractors will tell you are huge, when you compare bids it is startling how the prices for similar items will vary, based on their own resources and way of doing the same job. Bid five+ in the hopes that you get back 3 usable bids. Insist that everything be line itemized, and that materials and labor be broken out separately and itemized. Retain the exclusive right to amend the RFQ so you can drop/add/modify sections or elements after receiving bids to make it affordable. We dropped out almost $40K in pre-cast custom sill replacements and substituted caulking all around and of any sill cracks thereby replacing only 5 of over 140+ sills. If you do not have a qualified building management construction person to Supervise the job from your end, then you will have to do it, overseeing the Architect. Do not allow your Management company to just supply you with a contractor, DO the work, interview architects and Engineers, interview Contractors with the Selected Architect/Engineer. This is a ferociously expensive project that can quickly go out of control, AND if not done correctly, can have you doing it over in less than five years at greater expense. A good architect and a good contractor will help you, will find ways to save you money and working together do it better, safer, and a hopefully more durable job. I would say we have been lucky, but we have good Management, and we made our own luck thru diligence.

I am sure I must have left somethings out, but this is the general idea, anyway.

As to windows and doors, and who is responsible. That will be in your proprietary lease, Bylaws etc. (I am Coop oriented), regardless of how it falls out, you do not want individual owners replacing windows with whatever they want, in whatever color they want, and whatever quality they feel like, You need to set up a building wide plan for replacements, pick you price point, color and style and stick firmly to it, and asses them all accordingly. You do want to hire an Architect to consult as it can be complicated as to choice and needs.

There is no viable shortcut around using experts. Whether it be Architects and Engineers, CPA's, Certiorari work or licensed tradesmen.

It will always save you either money, grief or both. These are big ticket projects, requiring permits and DOB filings. You don't want the supplier acting as his own supervisor, really! You don't need a big fancy architect or Engineering firm. You can do with a small practice office with really smart and skilled people. IT can be a solo outfit. Just do your homework, knock on doors, if you see a job being done, ask questions, find out if everyone is happy with the execution of the job. Drive around the neighborhood, Check habitat articles for Vendors who did well, and who to avoid, there are plenty of those around!
To do it right is a lot of work, to do it wrong is even more work,
Good luck.

This is complex and involved major piece of work that has to be done correctly and certified. There is absolutely no point in going to a contractor without having a clear set of specs and plans in place. The answers you will get will be worthless, and likely cost you many times what you think it will cost.

The work involved covers: parapets, caps & copings, drainage, masonry, pre-cast sills, lintels, facade cracks, cutting & caulking, Terra-Cotta repair and sealing work. This can include, as in our building, the fact that the original mounting straps holding the T-C to the facade were pulling away from the building, necessitating an expensive and carefully engineered process and design solution for dismantling, replacing corroded straps with new SS straps, and re-installation. Then there are the fire-escapes, windows and sealants, roof inspection, elevator head/housing, gutters, pointing and ironwork.

There are architects and Engineers who both specialize in this work. They will have to do a very close inspection, photograph everything, and draw up detailed plans, devise the exact specs on how it will be dealt with, the products to be used, especially if they have to replace bricks and mortar that needs to match, and be knowledgeable in how a building constructed at the time yours was, was actually built.

There are three phases to the Architect's job: P1 - the site inspection and the specification work, the analysis and design documentation and technical drawings, bid documents and refereeing the site surveys by bidding contractors (on-site scheduled meetings) bid review, and advisement on selection and negotiations. P-2 is: the on-site inspection of the work being done by the contractor (how many visits you will require them to make for each significant type of work) and any additional on-site discoveries and solutions, or for that matter the Architect requiring them to redo work they have completed as insufficient, improperly executed, etc. not extensive enough, or the Contractor finding things and going to the Architect and saying you missed this, or we have found hidden damage you could not have foreseen etc. (they need to work well together). You need the Architect o see and approve all replacement bricks and mortar to ensure a proper match). The end of this phase is the Architect's sign-off on the Contractor's job. P-3 is: the Architect's final report and inspection notes, certification and stamps to the DOB and their inspection, with the Architect of the job.

You will probably have to put up a bridge on the street side of your building. That is expensive, so do everything you need to and do everything preventative as well. Spend the money once. P1 - a couple of years back ran us $15K, P2, $4,500, and P3 $2.5K, the bride alone was $20-25K on a 6 story street side facade (rest of building is 7 stories/30 units. facade work ran us about $135K We had to do this twice in a 5 year period because of storm damage. Without a plan in hand, the variables that Contractors will tell you are huge, when you compare bids it is startling how the prices for similar items will vary, based on their own resources and way of doing the same job. Bid five+ in the hopes that you get back 3 usable bids. Insist that everything be line itemized, and that materials and labor be broken out separately and itemized. Retain the exclusive right to amend the RFQ so you can drop/add/modify sections or elements after receiving bids to make it affordable. We dropped out almost $40K in pre-cast custom sill replacements and substituted caulking all around and of any sill cracks thereby replacing only 5 of over 140+ sills. If you do not have a qualified building management construction person to Supervise the job from your end, then you will have to do it, overseeing the Architect. Do not allow your Management company to just supply you with a contractor, DO the work, interview architects and Engineers, interview Contractors with the Selected Architect/Engineer. This is a ferociously expensive project that can quickly go out of control, AND if not done correctly, can have you doing it over in less than five years at greater expense. A good architect and a good contractor will help you, will find ways to save you money and working together do it better, safer, and a hopefully more durable job. I would say we have been lucky, but we have good Management, and we made our own luck thru diligence.

I am sure I must have left somethings out, but this is the general idea, anyway.

As to windows and doors, and who is responsible. That will be in your proprietary lease, Bylaws etc. (I am Coop oriented), regardless of how it falls out, you do not want individual owners replacing windows with whatever they want, in whatever color they want, and whatever quality they feel like, You need to set up a building wide plan for replacements, pick you price point, color and style and stick firmly to it, and asses them all accordingly. You do want to hire an Architect to consult as it can be complicated as to choice and needs.

There is no viable shortcut around using experts. Whether it be Architects and Engineers, CPA's, Certiorari work or licensed tradesmen.

It will always save you either money, grief or both. These are big ticket projects, requiring permits and DOB filings. You don't want the supplier acting as his own supervisor, really! You don't need a big fancy architect or Engineering firm. You can do with a small practice office with really smart and skilled people. IT can be a solo outfit. Just do your homework, knock on doors, if you see a job being done, ask questions, find out if everyone is happy with the execution of the job. Drive around the neighborhood, Check habitat articles for Vendors who did well, and who to avoid, there are plenty of those around!
To do it right is a lot of work, to do it wrong is even more work,
Good luck.

Joe:
While attorney involvement seems a good idea there's difficulty responding to your post because pertinent information is omitted. If you're able to disclose answers without causing legal/liability issues, the following questions are posed.
What was the nature of the conflict?
What are the manager's verbal demands? What did he ask you to do?
And what are the allegations on which eviction is based?

For starters, coop's are corporations in NY State and are required to be registered with the NYS Dept of Corporations. You can look up the president's name and address here - http://www.dos.ny.gov/corps/bus_entity_search.html
If it is not up to date, report it to the Dept of Corp.
I agree with Dax, without some general info on the issues, it's hard to advise on a course of action. Eviction isn't appropriate, the corporation can revoke your proprietary lease in the case of severe infraction of the by-laws. Major alterations without approval or city permits, extreme default in maintenance payments, subletting, continuous unreasonable noise may be causes to confront you with, but can generally be remedied.

Is this building a Mitchell_Lama coop? I don't know of any other coops with waiting lists. They may have specific requirements for adding names to the lease that differ from ordinary coops since they fall under other govt regulations. What is the building name/address? Sometimes that info is available online.

I'm hesitant to give details about exactly where I live because the management has us very paranoid. I don't want them to gain any info on what I'm thinking right now. In fact I don't plan on doing anything further unless the lawyer I'm hiring advises me to.

But I looked up their procedure for adding names to the lease. And while the general policy is a bit complicated, in this situation it is not. The only thing that they need to know, according to their written policy, is that my wife is her father's daughter and that she has been listed on the income affidavit for at least 2 consecutive years up to the current date. Both of those things are extremely easy to verify.

This situation we have here, I hope, for other people's sake, is not typical. The management has the board of directors wrapped around their finger and they're willing to break the law in harassing people. If you look up the proper procedure for any of the recent developments, it is very clear they are out of line. I only hope that the corruption stops at the management and they don't have people in the relevant government agencies on the pay roll too.

Like I said I'm hiring a lawyer. I'm not going to try to handle this myself anymore, we've just been pushed too far. Thanks for the help anyway though.

Fair enough, I guess it's hard to advise me when I'm being so vague. Thank you for joining the conversation.


The nature of the conflict:

Our dog got in a fight with another dog, about 3 months ago now, and the other dog was injured. The other party fled the scene before we could speak with them or exchange info; it was unclear which dog started the fight, and we didn't find out their dog had been injured until a few days later, from a security officer at the building. I immediately volunteered to pay the vet expenses and gave security my info with permission to pass it on to the other party, to which they responded that this should be sufficient to resolve the issue.

Then the management told us the other party wanted to remain anonymous. To this day, we do not know who they are, but we agreed to pay their expenses (through the management) anyway, just to try to keep the peace. Note that on the vet bill (we demanded a copy of that, but the other party's name was blacked out): the other dog's injury is described as "minor," and there were some charges for things unrelated to the injury, but we paid it anyway. Along along with the payment we submitted a letter of consolation to the other party, and a letter to the management indicating the payment was made in good faith and did not indicate guilt or liability. I don't think a lot of people would have paid the bill under these circumstances, never mind the letter of consolation, but bizarrely not even this was sufficient to resolve the matter.


The manager's verbal demands:

The general manager told us we had to get rid of the dog, but as I said we never received this in writing. My dog has never had a problem like this before or since, and is well liked by others in my building, very friendly. What the Occupancy Agreement says one must do if your dog displays aggression against another, is merely to keep your dog away from that other dog whenever on coop property. Not only have I done that, but I no longer walk the dog on the property at all, and I no longer let my dog socialize with any other dog under any circumstances, just in case. The management was notified that I'm taking these precautions via a copy of the letter of consolation sent to the other party, to no effect.

The issue with the general manager seems personal. We wonder if the owners of the other dog are relatives of his, but even that fails to explain how fare they've taken it.

In the "grounds for eviction" it said that our dog had attacked the other dog "without any provocation," causing "serious" injuries, and that we were harboring a "vicious" dog who is a nuisance to the community. Not only are these things false, but there is a certain process described in the Occupancy Agreement that should occur before a threat of eviction can be sent, which was bypassed. Also if it were really the case that we had to choose between the dog and eviction we would find a way to relocate the dog; but as I said there is nothing in the bylaws, in the management's notifications to us, or anywhere else indicating we should have to. In fact, even in the "grounds for eviction" it just says we have 10 business days to remedy the situation, it does not say how.


I did locate the address of the president of the board of directors, and I sent him a detailed letter about the whole thing, yesterday morning. The main point of the letter is that we have already remedied the situation, and did so a long time ago. My father-in-law and I suspect that the president does not know anything about this situation and that the "grounds for eviction" was sent with his signature copied onto it, without his knowledge. We're hoping he is angered about how this general manager has been behaving and intervenes on our behalf, but naturally we are scared. I don't want to be evicted, but even more so I don't want my wife or her elderly father to be evicted. We have all been losing a lot of sleep on this, not to mention the time it takes to prepare for a possible hearing (spent all weekend on that, falling behind on other work I have), and my wife has been having panic attacks and crying spells at work. We feel that at this point, we should achieve much more than just not being evicted: we should get some retribution for being harassed and intimidated, but we would settle for this general manager being fired. We don't feel safe living here with him in the management. And it can make a person paranoid to see how confident he is with using the pres' signature and threatening to involve city housing.

Joe:
Unless there are one or more other underlying issues involved, and although I'm not an attorney, based on what you've indicated an eviction would appear to be a stretch.
Nonetheless, you should consider taking the eviction notice seriously. Continuing to put relevant evidence/ documents in order as well as consulting with your attorney in a timely manner seem to be good ideas.

Yeah the more I learn the less likely our eviction seems. In fact I spoke with someone at the Attorney General's office yesterday and they said there's a strong possibility the notice we got was a bluff, and that the board president does not even know what this manager is doing. If you were a board pres (reader: maybe you are) wouldn't this upset you?

Which leads me to my next point: what this General Manger is doing is illegal, right? Obviously speaking to "my lawyer" would be a good idea, but that assumes I have one, or that I can afford one. My father-in-law has some rich friends who would help out, but he doesn't want to tap those resources unless he really thinks eviction is pending. He seems to think I'm handing it fine, which I guess I am, but it sure is taxing! I'm working on a dissertation for a PhD right now; I can't really be spending a week at a time learning how to act like a lawyer for the family just because some lunatic has decided to persecute us!

We wouldn't really want to sue the coop because that's not very neighborly, but we would like to see this tyrannical Gen Manager fired. He's causing my family a lot of hardship, not to mention wasting the coop's money on harassing us for no good reason. As a board member, wouldn't that concern you (if not the first thing, at least the second)? I feel like there should be some authority I could alert and pass my documentation on to, who would intervene.

and i'm horrified by the story you tell. in our building the management company would never be able to do this. everything is transparent and all important communications are approved by the board. although i understand the concern about reaching out to any attorney, a well-written letter might protect you in the long run.

if you decide to reach out to an attorney make sure that his/her letter states that you can't be held responsible for any legal fees for the building's attorney to respond to you.

@co-op_owner: Thank you for the comment. I was starting to think it was typical for people to look the other way when things like this happen. I'm still wondering if it is, but it is nice to hear a Board President indicate that they find this out of line!

The letter that I sent was very well-written - not to toot my own horn but I spent a long time on it, and it had the kind of detail to be convincing that we would have a case if the matter went to court, and it is completely backed up by the documentation I've prepared. We still have not heard back, either from the management or from the Board Pres. We figure we'll give them more time before assuming that they intend to ignore the issue. But if we don't hear anything for a couple of weeks, we're seriously thinking about suing for harassment.

It's looking like we need an attorney's help just to get our dog registered, and to get my wife's name on the lease. According to the Occupancy Agreement and our status, doing the latter should be very straightforward but they have been giving her a runaround on it for years (since before I got involved). At this point I am quite sure that the reason for them harassing us over the dog is because they don't want my wife to inherit her father's share (as I said, she has a right to this in our particular situation and it's very clear that she does), because she doesn't make as much money as most people they could replace her with. (Little do they know that in a couple of years, when I finish school and get a real job, our financial status will vastly improve!) Anyway, if we have to go through the trouble of getting an attorney to get done these things which should be very routine, we also want to be reimbursed for that expense, and for the time/energy we've been deprived of.

In the long-term I am considering pursuing a position of the board myself, to try to motivate the community to uproute some of this corruption. As I mentioned (I think) the people here are, in general, very nice, and in my opinion worth standing up for. But they seem to be such cowards when it comes to this tyrannical general manager!

joe, some of what you say confuses me. would be happy to advise further, but can you clarify a few things?

-your father-in-law owns the apartment
-your wife stands to inherit the apartment
-the building is not allowing her name to go on the lease because they are concerned about income level

what confuses me is what you say about them getting the apartment back - is this a limited ownership co-op with a waiting list? that's the only way the building can get the apartment back.

if not, and the apartment is owned free and clear and there's only maintenance to pay, they would have a hard time denying your wife. we sometimes request a year of maintenance in escrow if we have any financial concern - that could certainly be an option if need be.

I wish I could clarify things better but they are not clear on my end either, and I think management here prefers that things remain unclear.

My father-in-law is "the shareholder." He pays a monthly maintenance fee. I've asked him whether he owns this apartment and every time despite the length of his response I still never know the answer. I have never heard the coop referred to as "limited ownership," but I do know that my father-in-law and his (now deceased) wife were on a waiting list for a long time before they moved in. I also know that at the time when they went on the waiting list, as well as at the time they moved in, their intention was for my wife to inherit the apartment. In fact, they had entered her name on the lease along with their own names at that time, but then about 3 years ago, after my wife's brother suggested looking into it, that they discovered that technically only 2 names were allowed to be listed on the lease and that had defaulted to excluding my wife.

Now that my wife's mother is dead, it would seem straightforward that her name could replace her mother's on the lease. As for why they there's been such a runaround from management in getting this done, it's only speculation. I expect it has to do with my wife's income. But I don't know this. It's just the only explanation I can think of. They asked her for an absurd arrangement of documents, which she sent, only for them to then ask her for more documents, including some which she had already sent, and some outdated tax info that would require a hefty fee to the IRS to attain, and it was left unresolved. When they (or I) have attempted to communicate with management staff about it, the staff has been nasty and insulting on the phone and provided no clear information as to what we need to do.

I'm trying to sort things out for them, but like I said I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know a lot about these issues, it's been very hard. Yesterday after a conversation with my father-in-law, he decided to call a lawyer that another relative recommended, but having a little dementia, what he told the lawyer on the phone didn't make a lot of sense. He passed the phone to me at the end and the lawyer asked me to send him the notice we got, sounding a little frustrated. So I sent it, along with some clarification.

I'm hoping we'll be able to hire this lawyer and get this straightened out. On the other hand I don't think we should be responsible for the legal fees since what we want is supposed to be doable in a week, not 3 years. The whole thing is maddening.

My father-in-law still thinks we need to go to court tomorrow, because "grounds for eviction" notice said that if we didn't remedy the alleged problem by then that they will file a claim with Housing Preservation and Development for our eviction. I tried to explain that as of now that office doesn't even know about our problem, and if a claim is filed, THEN we would need to go to court. But it just went in circles. Like I said before: he has some dementia. Moreover, when I called the HPD office about it, to ask what we need to do, they said they don't handle these things at all!

Long story short, I guess clarity is exactly what is missing about every aspect of this situation. And I think that's the way the management likes it.

what you describe (with a waiting list) is a limited equity co-op. they paid very little in and arguably when they move out, the co-op reverts back and goes to the next person on the list.

where these co-ops have become hot topics is when there's a possibility that they will revert to unlimited equity. meaning that the owners in place when the 'contract' is up will be sitting on very valuable property. perhaps you are getting a hard time because the property is up for conversion in the next few years.

definitely reach out to a lawyer. you can learn more about these co-ops here:http://cooperator.com/articles/2156/1/Out-of-Many-One-New-York/Page1.html

Yes that does shed some light on the possible motivations behind all this. Really I just moved in here with my wife because the ceiling was falling in at my last apartment and her family is very welcoming. I had no idea how much politics I would be getting into. I just needed a place to stay.

Anyway I spoke with that lawyer I mentioned, myself, and he seems to know what he's doing, and to be taking our situation seriously. He has an impressive reputation and the person who recommended him is very trustworthy. At this point the plan is to pass on my records to the lawyer and follow his advice from here on. From the looks of it the management's handling was quite foolish, even to their own ends, because not only will they have to honor our rights but they may have to cover our legal expenses too. I can't believe how far they went to intimidate us, some of it was definitely not legal.

Anyway thank you for lending an ear and for the info.

After speaking with the attorney general's office, and reading some other stuff, it seems that it's not uncommon to have an ineffectual board of directors. I can imagine that having the title of, say, "President of the Board of Directors" of a coop, would look good for your resume and social status. If one could have such a title easily in exchange for passing off all responsibility to some management staff ... well I can see how a coop might fall into the sort of trap mine appears to be in. The management has their own agenda, and they can threaten people via intimidating mail or visits from security officers or nasty phone calls, and generally that's enough to get their way. And as long as they don't do those things to the immediate family/friends circle of board members, nobody is going to intervene. Because who wants to have to go to court, even if they're right? Let's face it, justice is a luxury. If you want it and aren't rich, you have to make serious sacrifices (which are unjust).

Well we've about had it. I'm pretty sure my documentation shows this manager has been pulling some illegal moves in harassing us about it and we're not afraid to pursue it. We're also not afraid to get the board in trouble. I'm not really interested in excuses from people who are supposed to be in charge, but sit there doing nothing while my family is harassed to the point of sleeplessness, panic attacks, and crying spells.

Also, when I question about I the written warning, they quote me 12.1, and said the house rule is the written warning, can they give me the warning prior of violation?

and as previously said, any fines have to be in the proprietary lease. we have a similar situation right now in that the current owner is going to rent from the new owner for about 2 months. the board was notified of that prior to interviewing the buyer and had to approve. if you were informed of this after all paperwork was submitted it seems the seller pulled a fast one on you.

I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that it isn't "any fines have to be in the proprietary lease", but rather that the proprietary lease allow for fines. To my understanding the specifics do not need to be in the proprietary lease.

I know in my building we also have a $1K fine for having an "illegal sublet". I also know that we as a board are reasonable and will waive it if circumstances warrant. I also know that as part of out application, the sublet policy is included so that there is no question about it.

In your case, you don't indicate whether the existing tenant from the prior owner had a lease that extended past Feb 15th. I would think that if the lease had not expired, that you could say to the board, you approved the lease and (I assume) there was no clause in the lease indicating that the lease terminated if the coop was sold to a new owner. If the lease already expired, I would send a letter to the board indicating that as a new shareholder in a coop, you were unaware that allowing the current tenant sufficient time to find another place to live would be a violation of the rules. I would explain that you would have abided by the rules if you had been aware that this was an issue, and that you have asked the tenant to move out as expeditiously as possible (and I would ask the tenant to move as soon as they can). I would then ask that any penalty be waived as you were new to the building, unaware of the rules and as soon as you found out you took steps to comply with the rule by insisting the tenant move out. I would also remind then that this was a pre-existing tenant and that no one advised you that this was an issue.

This is one of the stranger things I've heard about lately.

First, why in the world did you close on your purchase with a tenant in possession of the unit you were buying? Vacant possession should be a prerequisite to any sale except in extraordinary circumstances - e.g., buying an apartment with a rent-controlled tenant as an investment.

Second, you can give someone a general warning in writing that rules will be enforced, but that's not a "written warning" in the usual sense of the term. The warning has to *follow* the specific offense. This is confirmed by the language in the House Rules you cite: "First Offense: written warning (see above)." Note that the penalty on each line follows as a *consequence* of the offense. However, as sleazy as this may be, it's not terribly important because House Rules are generally subject to change by a vote of the board. They can change the language in the House Rule to match what they want it to say.

The third point is that the authority to impose financial penalties must come from the Proprietary Lease, not the House Rules. Financial penalties are a material term of the lease and may not be imposed unilaterally by the board. The board can add financial penalties to the House Rules, but they will not be enforceable unless the lease clearly provides for such penalties.

All that said, I would make two recommendations. First, CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY as it sounds like this is quite a bad situation for everyone. (I must stress that I am not an attorney myself.) Second, look for an amicable solution to this mess. Both you and the board are very unhappy about the situation, and you should be actively working to remove the tenant while reassuring the board that you are doing so.

Additional questions: Why didn't the board know about the sublease at the time of the closing? Or did they? Has the sublease expired at this point? Is there even a formal sublease, or is the presence of the subletter a surprise to the board?

Be *extremely* careful about letting someone stay in an apartment after a sublease has expired, as there are all sorts of surprising laws that kick in. Also, although the board may not have the authority to fine you, they certainly have the right to sue to cancel your lease and shares if you fail to remove the subletter. Assuming that the sublease has expired, your focus must be on getting the subletter out of the unit. Be open and forthright with your board about the details of the situation and what you're doing about it.

Hi, I've gone through this recently in a Queens Cooperative that I manage. This was with direction from the coop's attorney as well. With regards to the alteration of the wall, that is probably not only a violation of the Cooperative's policy, it was most likely done without architect oversight and also without a Department of Buildings permit. In the case that it did actually create a new room, this could be an occupancy issue that is changing both the room configuration and as a result, the floor plan that is on file with the city. It is in the best interests of the safety of those in the unit and in the building to have this corrected as this will be considered to be a violation of both the DOB and FDNY should this not be resolved, legally. The issue is that if the DOB comes and gives a violation and subsequent fine or violation that would fall on the Cooperative as they are the entity that owns the building (leasing to the Shareholder). You would probably be best served by talking this out with the Coop attorney to see what the options are in this case.

With regards to the family members living in the unit with the Shareholder, we have just gone through this as well with the Coop's attorney. Based on guidance that was provided in this case, most Proprietary Leases provide for immediate family members to inhabit the unit and that it will not be unreasonably withheld from being permitted. Should the Shareholder be able to provide proof (birth certificates, etc.) that these are, indeed his family members, the Board will not have much success in removing them, even if this is taken to court. Our lawyer has stated that in this case, it is extremely difficult, should they provide proof of immediate family status. The Board may be out of luck on this issue.

Thanks Mark, we are in Queens too. I was pretty sure that would be the answer. Our MA is on the job regarding removal of the wall and we are sending a letter through our lawyer regarding proof that they are his relatives and will also need to do criminal checks. I was hoping that this pattern of lies, he also tried to sneak in a washing machine, would have some bearing if we did decide to go to court. I don't know why he lied regarding the family, it is a 2 bdrm, but he did. Would it be effective to have an addition to the admissions package stating that the applicants understand that the approval of their purchase is based on the information they supplied and the applicants swear that all information in the package is the truth?

It's possible that a statement in the package would have more weight on the Board's view, but that statement may not have any more bearing in the legal system as the courts are more likely to look at law versus coop policies.

I am curious. Is there any possibility of pursuing that the applicant may have committed fraud by lying on the application? Is there any possible outcome from that which will resolve the problems? (either getting the shareholder evicted or at least scared enough to behave?).

As a long time owner/investor/manager, let me say that this board may want to look at the paperwork this new shareholder filled out to review whether on the paperwork/application he put in writing who would reside in the unit. Are there fines established if what is written on application is not adhered to?

Also, look at the alteration agreement that should have been provided, did he indicate he would be altering anything? If he did not, and he made alterations, are there fines established?

At this point, the board must remember that this shareholder lied once, and probably will lie again.

Does he reside in the unit at all? Or is it just his parents and a brother? If they are nice people who are clean and respectful, enjoy each other. If they are causing any problems, be sure to keep a written record.

Yes he lied on his paperwork and said no one else would be living with him, that is why we asked him to confirm that he would be living alone as he was living with his family at the time. No, as I mentioned above, he did not indicate on the AA that he would be putting up a wall. I also mentioned below that he tried to bring in a washing machine. The Board is well aware that he will probably lie again, we expect many. We do believe he is living with his family. As for how enjoyable they are or not that is not the problem.
We now have new neighbors who have shown they are not trustworthy and there seems to be nothing we can do other than fine them. The interview is about whether you feel people will make good shareholders and neighbors, they have already passed the financial terms. I don't believe they will make good neighbors under the circumstances.