My understanding is that Dept of Buildings requires a super to either live on premises or live within a certain distance from the property (500 feet?) if the building contains more than a certain number of units (40? not sure). You may be in violation of that law.
Generally, an apartment is provided as a condition of employment, and the value of the apartment (rent, utilities, etc.) are not considered taxable income. So, it's often to the supers benefit financially, assuming the apartment is appropriate for the super and his family. If he is not living within the building, he still must live nearby.

Not entirely true. A building is not required to provide an apartment for the super.
For a building like yours, 64 units, offering that package (live-in super) is a plus on many levels, both for the employee and the residents.

Superintends today dont really care much about apartment. One they get paid a bit more and second they are not worried about someone knocking on there door threw out the door.
The positive is the out side super can not go home a take a nap.
Why should building take on extra expense.
The extra money that comes from that unit can help to pay the differense of his salary
I have 20yrs experence working with supers and best is not to live there. More work get done cuase you must creat a work schedule for him.

http://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/2013/2013-June/Featured-Articles/New-York-s-Roommate-Law#.UiYr7is6XIc

note the info that indicates the owner must be the primary resident for the roommate law to come into effect. if they are not residing in the apartment, it is a sublet and must come under board review.

The task should be your property mangers and a good atorney. The contract that was writen 20 years ago may have an end date, Or the years many coop bylaws have changed that my void or contract or give you room to modify some of the conditions in the contract.

Your policy needs to be content-neutral. If you allow unit owners to use the community room, you can't say, "You can use it for a book club meeting but not a prayer meeting." So long as the proposed activity is legal, not excessively noisy, and not disruptive or dangerous to other residents, you should allow it.

We believe this was caused by one member of the board who shouldn’t even be on the board. He was voted off previously because of the severe financial damage he caused the building during his reign of terror which included screaming at owners, continually lying, i.e. anytime he wanted something the owners didn’t want – he would just say it was a NYS law. He was reappointed against the will of 80% of the building owners who tried to get rid of him but were manipulated into keeping him.
Also of note, there are daily card games including a weekly high stakes poker game that no one has objected to.

In every Proprietary Lease I've ever seen or heard of, a shareholder's spouse is explicitly allowed to live in the apartment. The spouse is not considered a roommate. The NYC Rent Guidelines Board confirms that "in addition to your immediate family, state law allows you to have one roommate" - see http://www.housingnyc.com/html/guide/basics.html#Roommates

I'm not a lawyer, but NY seems to support rules and regulations created by condo's and coop's under the business judgement rule. Whereas NYS may declare it legal, it's not in good taste for women to be topless in common areas where members of the public and children would be present. If I were on the board, I would push to amend the House Rules to that affect. Generally, the corporate bylaws charge the board with promulgating rules and regulations for operation of the corporation, so no owner approvals should be required.

I'd imagine you'd have to have the same rules for men as for women. You couldn't allow men to be barechested in the common areas either.

Just how much of an issue is this in your building?

We have a new owner that is demanding we allow this for them.

Public area dress codes should be part of house rules, no bare feet, swim clothes, bathrobes, pj's or nighties in halls or common areas. Is this an over 55/seniors- type Coop or a young Coop? Obviously not a naturist specialty coop...

Too many rules. As for the bare breasts, I guess it all depends on what shape they are in.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm very doubtful you could ban topless females in common areas, as that would be discriminatory. However, I'm pretty confident you could ban topless *people* if you wanted to do so. See the concurrence in the key case in the topless area (ahem), People v. Santorelli (1992): "Although protecting public sensibilities is a generally legitimate goal for legislation, it is a tenuous basis for justifying a legislative classification that is based on gender, race or any other grouping that is associated with a history of social prejudice."

You don't need to go crazy with this. If you really want to pass such a rule, make it short and simple: "No topless people are allowed in common areas." You don't need to come up with a whole dress code - well, unless your next problem is some crazy guy wandering the lobby in an undershirt and jockey shorts screaming, "I'm not topless! I'm not topless!"

As a Part owner, You can attach a rider to your building policy. All you need to do is to present the issue at your next anuall meeting of all share holders and put on table for a vote

We're publishing a podcast today on collecting arrears in a condo. While your situation sounds like it has progressed beyond this, there are some ideas mentioned that you might use. If you have any amenities, this unit owner could be barred from them. If your board was so inclined, this unit owner could be publicly shamed (other condos have done this).

Hi. Thanks for the reply. The Podcast was interesting to listen to. Weve followed much of the advise, including starting with liens, official communications with owners in arrears, and setting limits after which legal action is taken. Unfortunately, there are no amenities we can block the owners from. The only amenities are our security, gated parking lot and parking spots. None of these can be taken away legally. I noticed you mention publicly shaming owners in arrears. In what way? Ive always been careful in protecting privacy by not mentioning owners in arrears by name. Perhaps this is a mistake.

to the best of my knowledge, union employees can't opt to skip lunch and leave early. he should be written up for this by your management company.

The first thing you should do is talk to this person and find out how it originated (does he/she have it in writing, did someone approve it, etc). The are many unanswered questions here. Is he/she paying relief to come in early to cover? I personally do not agree with an employee cutting his shift short as what do you do if the next person wants the same? I also believe your super and managing agent should have addressed this issue when it was first noticed and nipped it in the bud. Get the facts, make a decision, and if you decide to revert back to the way it should have been, put it in writing to the employee.
Hope this helps.

MRM

Forming a shareholder advocacy group sounds like a start. I would also suggest calling for a Special Shareholders Meeting and put all your concerns on the agenda. Perhaps, even over throwing those in power.