This has been discussed before. Please try to search for the same topic.

One manager is okay when dealing with the beginning of the conversion in which sponsor is majority and according to the conversion plan has not totally given up his control of the management over the co-op. However, once the sponsor conveys the administration to the co-op or board, then the sponsor may retain its own representative or agent to deal with the administration of those apartments still being sold or that remain rented in the building. This agent acts of the sponsor representative and landlord for the sponsor's tenants. The agent may be a board member and interact with the new management just as any other shareholder.

AdC

I know you want to justify this but it is not legal.

In our building we have a building manager for the overall well being of the building.

We have rental units, owned by the sponsor. The quantity has dwindled from the high point many years ago of 150 units to a current low of 12 units in a 550 unit building.

The management of the rental units has always been the purview of the sponsor and the sponsor’s managing agent for overseeing rental units.

Kindly note that there is a difference (not just a nuance) in that the co-op's building manager manages the building and the rental agent manages the rental units within the building.

If there is an issue within a unit (unless it is a clear emergency, e.g.: water flood, power failure) the renter contacts the rental agent who in turn contacts the building manager.

For us it is quite clear, both for the shareholders and the renters.

I know a woman who rents in a very exclusive coop in Forest Hills and she has a different managing agent than the coop and has for many years

one pro is that , if you have one managing agent, you have more efficient and direct communicaton concerning all aspects of apartment maintenance and repairs. This makes problems that are re-occurirng in a building discovered faster.

Our building manager does not have time, nor is the building manasger paid, to deal with renters. The renters are not our co-op’s owners, but rather the lessee of the owner’s property. The legal pathway is from the co-op via the sponsor or owner to the renter, not directly to the renter.

There is NO contract between the co-op and the renter.

When a renter misbehaves or breaks the house rules, we notify the owner / sponsor. When the renter has a problem with a kitchen cabinet, the renter is advised to go to the owner / sponsor.

Why interpose when there is no legal standing?

To no one in particular, we all need to think through the legal ramifications of our quick assessments posted herein.

Can Sponsors Employ Their Own Managers?
NY Times, Sunday, March 23, 2008, by Jay Romano
quote
Q In a co-op, must the managing agent for the co-op and sponsor-owned apartments be the same?
A “This is an interesting question because it may seem, in practice, that the law on the issue is ignored,” said Andrew Brucker, a Manhattan co-op and condo lawyer. He said that under a section of New York State’s General Business Law addressing issues governing the conversion of rental buildings to co-ops, all apartments occupied by nonpurchasing tenants must be managed by the same agent who manages all the other apartments in the building.

unquote

In point of fact, HarryM, in my interpretation, is not suggesting two managers for day-to-day operations of the co-op. In point of fact, the building manager (one only) supports all “owners”. In this case there are shareholders who own and occupy and there are owners who by virtue of a contract (by-law perhaps) are allowed to lease (rent).

The coop has one manager for the entire property, regardless of who owns.

If one is suggesting that the owner / sponsor has a separate set of operating rules, maintenance, rules and regulations, etc. then I would agree that the duality is not allowed.

But if all are bound by the same by-laws, proprietary lease, house rules, etc, albeit the owner / sponsor imposes additional restrictions which the owner/ sponsor enforces on renters, then I agree there in no conflict.

and they are far more credible than you. Sorry, you are wrong. a competet managing agent should be able to handle all units in a building. Are you perhaps not competent? what is your real issue here?

In reading this thread, I am trying to understand the penchant to burden the building manager with the units of the sponsor/owners.

Forget sponsor units for a moment and ask if the co-op permits rentals by co-op owners.

Again from the notes posted by others, the thought is that the building is responsible for the well being of the entire building and all units regardless of occupancy, e.g.: shareholder, renter from a shareholder, renter from a sponsor.

My own experience is that I would agree with this line of thought.

However, I would further offer and tend to agree in reading between the lines that rental units in general whether rented by a shareholder or the sponsor pose additional challenges.

I would hope that we all agree, as has been asserted by one writer in this thread, that the legal contract is between renter and unit owner, whether shareholder or sponsor.

Further to the above points, there is one corporation that owns the building, the co-op corporation wherein shareholders and the sponsor have an ownership interest.

Thus, the building manager, whether a hired firm’s representative or the employee of the co-op has overall management responsibility for the building reporting to the board of directors.

Yes, I would agree with the NYTimes article if the article’s writer is connoting that there cannot be two managers each responsible for a segment of the buildings’ physical operation and management.

Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see the issue if one accepts the premise in the paragraph immediately above.

However, I agree with the other points made in this thread that the interior of the co-op unit is the property of the owner, either individual shareholder or sponsor. Thus, unless it is an emergency, where life or property is at risk, any requests from a unit’s occupant needs to flow via the sponsor or the unit owner.

Quite frankly as a board member, I do not wish to accept responsibility via my building manager for responding to an occupant’s request in opposition to the wishes of the unit’s legitimate owner, shareholder or sponsor.

The rental agent, whether sponsor or unit owner, is garnering enough funds to cover administrative costs that I do not care for my building manager to accept. Nor do I wish to burden my shareholders with the costs of administering the rentals wherein shareholders and the sponsor are earning a profit.

By the way, we are self managed and have been so for many years and we have an outstanding building manager and long term employee. And let me assert that we have an excellent relationship with the sponsor and a respect for the sponsor; a relationship which is absent the extreme adversarial behavior intimated here in this thread and other postings.

It is a shame that some folks are apologists for the NYTimes and some folks need to proffer a rancor for relationships which they perhaps inherited as fostered or stoked by prior boards.

Obviously the managing agents hate this law because: it means they might have to actually do some work and have. god forbid, some accountability. . There , by LAW has to be one "entity" working with all apartments/units. Not some strange sponsor entity dealing with "bills " from rental / sponsor apartments. Clean the place fo the sponsor, have strong coop = get the sponsor "entity" OUT 100 percent. How to do it - call the exterminator - ie the Attorney General's office to rid the place of varmits (yes, they really are non-productive and parasitical). I am not being ironic here, This is serious. you want a really solid coop? Get one managing agent! it i your right.