ummmm... I don't get why your board sent a notice to cure a "non-nuisance causing dog" to a shareholder of any age in the first place, especially if there are other dogs in the building.

If I were your Board, I'd pay the fees and count myself fortunate she doesn't file a harassment suit... from what you describe, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

What was the purpose of asking a long term tenant with a non nuisance dog to give it up? What was the point? I assume you want to be a no pet bldg? That being said, I've never heard of a bldg that would ask someone to give up their pet rather than not allowing new pets. If a board made a rule that all tenants now must upgrade their electric, would the board require that all current shareholders bare the expense to upgrade or leave? Boards should tell their attorneys what to do not the other way around.

I agree. Pets are family and are known to be mentally and physically therapeutic, hence the service dogs at nursing homes, hospitals, schools, etc. To force someone to give up a pet is asking them to leave the building too.

Correction on previous description of this gaff: I just found out the pet owner the Board Pres went after is a tenant of a rent-stabilized unit that is still owned by the sponsor. Our Prez made the sponsor threaten legal action. Are we still liable for tenant's legal fees or can she only present them to the sponsor for reimbursement. She knows it is our Pres that started this harrassment. There are shareholders and tenants alike with cats and dogs--are cats considered the same as dogs in a no-pet building?

Virtually every Proprietary Lease has a clause that requires a shareholder in default to pay the coop's legal fees in dealing with that default. (This is often Paragraph 28.) Real Property Law Sec. 234 says that any such clause implies a reciprocal obligation on the part of the coop. In other words, if the coop defaults on the lease, then the coop has to pay the shareholder's legal fees.

I'm not a lawyer, but it sure sounds like you owe the shareholder her legal fees. It is absolutely clear that she is protected by the Pet Law -- you admit that "everyone knows" she had the dog for "many years" and there was no nuisance -- so you had no legal basis for demanding that she get rid of the dog. This could certainly be construed as harassment. I'd pay her legal bills in a hurry, along with a fervent apology.

You should of course check with your coop attorney before doing anything. I say this mainly because it doesn't sound like you consulted your lawyer the first time around. I can't imagine any attorney advising you to go after a longtime pet who wasn't a nuisance, since you would clearly be in the wrong.

Well I guess my Board gets the gaff of the century award for this one. It was instigated by the Board President. It's a partially sponsor-owned building and there are some rent protected tenants who have long term esa pets and I think Prez was trying to set the tone for making the sponsor remove his tenant's pets. I heard the sponsor did something similar to some of his stabiziled renters but that was probably in a move to try and get the units back. I think the renters are demanding legal fees back too. I thought that since we dropped the action and never actually served the owner with eviction papers that it meant we were not responsible for legal fees since it was never a real lawsuit that we lost. I know if we lose we pay SH fees, but we dropped it, right? Still think we have to pay?

Again, I'm not an attorney, but when the board told the shareholder she had to get rid of her pet, you violated her right of quiet enjoyment, regardless of whether any lawsuit was involved. This is a default under the lease and the shareholder would certainly have a legitimate claim for any legal fees she incurred. If you balk at paying these fees, I would expect the shareholder to go for the jugular and sue you for everything she can think of. She'd probably win.

As I said, we made a big mistake listening to the Board President. I think it was personal mission he was on and thought that we should uphold the no pet policy to set an example for the rest of the SH who want dogs and also to provoke the sponsor into holding up his end with tenants that have pets. I hope we get off with just paying her current legal fees.

Thanks all,

Words fail me as to the stupidity and incompetency of this board. The board member who suggested this action should immediately resign. This is yet another example of boards overreaching their power to harm people they don’t like. I hope the owner sues the hell out of you personally.

It happens all too often unless there is a watchdog (fogive the pun in this circumstance) watching over "my-agenda" board members. One will get something into his or her head and watch out -- with a strong enough personality that director can talk over, scream over, and win over the majority. Calmer heads do not always prevail, unfortunately. Board members should try to remember that this is not about what "they" like or don't like -- it's about the co-op and the shareholders in general.

This sounds like pure fee generation on the part of the attorney who started this suit. I live in an upscale co op on the Queens/Nassau border and (in my iopinion, gotta put that in so he doesn't sue me)our rather ineffectual attorney started about a dozen "illegal dog" suits. He dropped all but one, yet, we must pay for the expense of the dropped litigation. This is the same attorney who orchestrated having to go to court for a recount after an election whereby I lost by 806 shares out of 5 million cast. He then proceeded to bring in one of Donald Trump's attorney's to prevent me from getting the ballots for a recount I was willing to pay for. I was awarded the right, but by then the new election was here. This little fiasco cost the shareholders $86,000. I paid $5,000 to my attorney. These attorney's have to be stopped and made accountable for their actions and fees. Boards have to have members who understand the law and will question the actions of both the lawyers and accountants. Without knowledgable board members we are at the mercy of those on our payroll. If Senator Liz Krueger's bill were passed, we would at least have a government agency to assist us. Will everyone with complaints please talk to their elected officials about supporting Senate bill 7958 to start an ombourdsman agency for co ops and condos.
Thank you.
A fellow disgrntled shareholder who wants to make a difference.

Pay up and learn from your mistake. Not sure who on the board is making these bad decisions. Common sence should prevail when making a decision. Having said that common sense and boards is a rarity in my time in building mgt.

MRM.