so, tell us, what is yrou real problem with this bill (and dont say that it open up boards to lawsuits because that is a cheap answer) - you do not like being held accountable? what is your real issue? I think it is a long overdue bill. why shouuldn't people be told why they have been turned down? in reality there can only be one legitimate reason, which is financial. this rule eliminated personal agendas form board members - it is a good thing.

it is such a good idea, i am calling my rep. now:

Home
Coop Disclosure Law Intro 119
Submitted by Bernadette E. on Mon, 02/27/2006 - 12:00pm.
We recently collected your feedback on the Fair and Prompt Coop Disclosure Act, resolution 119 in the City Council. The resolution, reintroduced by Council Member Monserrate, would require coops to put their cards on the table when they turn someone down. The bill that has had almost unanimous support in the Council's Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus. DFNYC members were overwhelmingly in favor of supporting Intro 119.

There are more than 300,000 coop units in the city, slightly more than half outside of Manhattan. An article from yesterday's Real Estate Section illustrates the fact that the problem of non-disclosure effects all socioeconomic segments of the coop market (I've attached a PDF of the article along with the bill's fact sheet).

While not every instance of non-disclosure represents an instance of unlawful discrimination, the fact that coops have not had to explain their reasons has made fighting discrimination in coop transfers much more difficult than it ought to be. The bill only requires that reason be set forth in writing (a) timely and (b) with specificity. If the coop has done that, the coop has complied.

Right now, consumers have more rights to fight out why they have been turned down for a department store credit card, than they do for a home that they, the seller, the brokers, and a bank all thought they were qualified for.

TAKE ACTION: The Anti-Distrimination Center of Metro New York has asked that we call our Council Members and ask them to co-sponsor this bill. Find you council member at our Contact Your Representative page.

Include your name, address, and phone number whenever you contact your representative and tell them you are a member of Democracy for NYC.

If your council member has already co-sponsored the resolution, it’s nice to thank them. View a list of current co-sponsors.

Read the legislation.

Attachment Size
Intro199FactSheet.pdf 107.12 KB

Hi, Larry,

Please see the earlier series of posts on this question, a few entries down.

Yes, co-ops should aim to defeat the bill.

Not because we love discrimination and want to protect our smoke-filled back-rooms.

But because:

- laws already exist to outlaw discrimination against the protected classes. The state a.g. prosecutes these complaints.

- bill 119 gives real estate agents, of all people, the right to sue when their clients are turned down (in addition to the applicants). Why real estate agents?

- by putting their reasons to deny an application to someone in writing, boards open themselves up to lawsuits. If you don't believe me, just imagine a really aggressive attorney reading over that letter.

- if New York State corporate law should be changed, change the law! Don't try to write laws around it.

- the bill limits co-op rights and adds billable hours to law firms.

- any denial letter will be written so vaguely and blandly that no one will know what the real issues were.

- if a board wants to deny an applicant because of her race/religion/disability/sexual orientation, they will still do so ... they just won't say so!

I say, let's let the existing laws work before larding the books with more laws.

Steve

Isnt the "beauty" of a co-op that you collectively get to choose who you want as your neighbors.

Admittedly, discrimination has no place in the decision.

Although one must recognize that some boards may be discriminatory, there are already laws and statutes which govern this and make it illegal. These boards, one must believe, can and will be held accountable for their discriminatory ways.

This may be idealistic....but to pass a bill requiring boards to announce any reason they rejected an applicant seems absolutely ridiculous.

Any council member who votes in favor of this should be voted out of office just as quickly as any board member who is uncovered to have acted with discrimiation as his motive.

This should be the message.

You are correct. This law only will make co-ops spend more money. We will be brought to court for no reason or any reason. You then have to notify your insurance company, your lawyer.

We went thru this found not guilty, cost us $3000. to defend. The accusing party only had to make the complaint..

By the way they also name the Board of Directors in the action.

Hi, David,

I agree that the bill is ridiculous, but I'm not so certain it's doomed to failure. There's plenty of support for it on the council, and among the people of NYC too. After all, ask anyone if they're for or against discrimination, and you know the answer.

My neighborhood has a group of owners (coops, condos) who are drafting a letter in opposition to 119 to send to our city council member and Christine Quinn.

Please write your city council member and send a copy to Speaker Quinn (she's on our side). You can find your council member's contact info at www.nyc.gov (look on the left, under "Elected Officials," and click on "City Council").

Get active! Encourage your neighbors and board to make a difference!

Does anyone know how many discrimination complaints against co-ops have been made under existing (state) law? If not, any ideas how to find out?

I'm wondering how big a problem this really is. Certainly, for the applicant who has been discriminated against, it's devasting. But is there a real epidemic of co-op discrimination? How many boards have been sued by the Attorney General's office?

(And even if there is a problem, is the best way to address it to have another jurisdiction enact a law that duplicates one already in effect?)

Lawyers, please help!

Steve,

In NYC it is open season against coops. All a person has to do is file a discrimination claim against the co-op and the board and you have to defend it. That means your insurance , your lawyer.

If the court finds that there is no merit to the case,you win but you pay your attorney and the deductible for your insurance. The person making the claim pays nothing.
So you win and lose at the same time.

Having to explain why you rejected a person makes for another reason to be brought to court.We have enough laws about discrimination without adding fuel to the fire.

I totally agree, Larry.

Most people don't realize that already there are laws on the books against discrimination and that they are not only used, they are used sucessfully.

Our managing agent told our board a story as a warning not to take notes: A couple applies to buy. They're interviewed; one is Caucasian, the other is African-American. The board denies the purchase (for, we assume, a perfectly legal reason). The couple sues. The board members' notes from the meeting are subpoened. Turns out one board member wrote "mixed race."

Case didn't even go to trial -- the co-op had no choice but to concede.

Now, perhaps the person who made the note was bigoted. But maybe the note was just to help remember the couple, nothing more.

My point is that co-ops already have to meet legal standards that prohibit discrimination, and they don't always come down on the right side of the law.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm part of a neighborhood group of co-op & condo owners who are drafting a letter in opposition to the bill that we will send to our city councilmember. Please consider doing the same!

Steve: My guess is, discrimination complaints against coops under current law aren't overwhelming because there's no law that lets buyers (and real estate agents) make coops such an easy target to shoot at. That's what proposed Bill 119 calling for written reasons for rejection would do.

As Larry said, it's open season against coops. There are valid discrimination cases in many arenas, but people yell about civil rights at the drop of a hat. If all it takes is filing a form to claim coop discrimination, the AG's office will be inundated, esp since a buyer or agent won't have to waste his time, energy or money to pursue the matter.

I don't care how many complaints against coops have been made. I care about: 1) the can of worms opened if buyers or agents have free reign on this, 2) the time and energy that boards/management will have to spend on frivolous/unfounded claims, and 3) the legal fees coops will incur for their attorneys to handle these issues.

Presumably, the AG's office would investigate thoroughly and be discerning enough to know what complaints may be valid. But if you think the courts are bogged down now, imagine how the dockets will fill up if complaints against coops for discrimination against buyers start pouring in.

I totally agree, BP.

My co-op is part of a neighborhood group of owners (mostly residents of co-ops and condos) and we're drafting a letter in opposition to this bill that we will send to our representatives in city hall.

Please consider doing the same!

Steve - My coop is also getting our shareholders to sign a letter or petition opposing Bill 119.

To all here - The City Council will pass or reject this bill, so the best person to send letters/petitions to is your district councilman or councilwoman. If you don't know his/her name and office address, go to www.nyc.gov. On the left under "Elected Officials" click on "City Council" and there you can get the info you need.

BP is right -- write your city council member! Get your neighbors to join in, either as co-signers or in writing their own letter. Send a copy to the council speaker, Christine Quinn, who is on our side. She's blocking the bill from consideration, but faces lots of opposition. She could use our support.

Emial has changed the checks and balances in the mananegement relationship. Mananegent can no longer ignor our complaints... because of the Email trail.

Is there an Email address that we can all send our objection to this bill.

Go to:

www.nyc.gov

On the left, under "Elected Officials," click "City Council."

On the right, under "Quick Links," click "Find My Council Member."

You'll then enter your address and borough. When your council member's page comes up, click his/her e-mail address.

It would seem to me that without ANY reason given, there is no way most people could sue, or that they would even be privy to why they were denied.(what an IDEAL world) Unless someone on the board would put their own building at risk by opening their mouth. I have seen boards bend backwards to look the otherway at things that you would normally be denied for, for the "right" type of potential new neighbor, and then decline someone with a much stronger postion, who just wasn't a good "fit".

Certainly it's not easy. But co-ops do, in fact, lose discrimination lawsuits in State Court. The attorney general prosecutes such cases; anyone who believes she has been the victim of discrimination needs to contact Cuomo's office, where the staff will walk her through the process of filing a complaint. She will not need an attorney or to spend her own money.

Current laws aside, do you think that it's going to be easier to sue if a board puts in writing that a buyer's finances aren't up to par?

Even if that's the case, a lawyer will still have to convince a judge/jury that discrimination took place INDEPENDENT OF the financial issue.

Anyone expecting a co-op board to write, "We denied your application because you use a wheelchair" or "we don't like teenagers" is going to be disappointed. Even if boards do discriminate -- I agree that we're not in an ideal world -- they will come up with a thoroughly legal reason to turn the buyer(s) down.

REBNY & CCNYC CONTENT FORWARDED:
Discrimination is prohibited in Board admissions procedures. Each Board’s application process must comply with the following laws: The Federal Fair Housing Act, The Civil Rights Act, The New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, Protected Categories: There are currently fourteen protected categories under which claims can be brought against a New York City cooperative either in the courts or before a city, state or federal administrative body if a prospective purchaser believes that a rejection was due to discrimination because of their: Age, Disability, Partnership Status, Alien Status Gender(including gender identity), Race, Children(or childless state), Lawful Occupation, Religion, Country of National Origin, Marital Status, Sexual Orientation, Creed, Military Status. It is unlawful to discriminate or refuse to sell or rent to a person based on any of the above named 14 categories. These categories cannot be referred to in any advertisement offering or seeking property for sale or rental. These laws prohibit the representation to any person that a dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental, when the dwelling is in fact available. It is also prohibited to make any representations in connection with the purchase, sale, or rental of any property, that there will or may be physical deterioration of dwellings in the area, and regarding changes that have occurred or may occur in the racial or religious composition of a neighborhood. To protect itself from unfounded claims of discrimination, it is important for a Board to develop a carefully conceived policy and clearly stated procedures in the handling of applications. Historically, the right of the Board of Directors of a cooperative to allow or withhold consent from a sale, for any reason, other than the above cited classes, or for no reason, has been recognized and protected by the courts. Members of a cooperative corporation have the right to decide for themselves with whom they would like to share their community.

TO: REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK - Residential Management Council
Re: Intro. 119 of 2006, the Fair and Prompt Coop Disclosure Law
..........the City Council is again taking up the Fair and Prompt Coop Disclosure Bill (Intro 119/06) which would require a cooperative to specifically state its reasons for rejecting a purchaser within 5 days of making such decision. The bill states, “This requirement includes identifying: each element of the purchaser’s application which was found … to be deficient, any specific ways that the application failed to meet any specific policies, standards, or requirements of the cooperative corporation, and the source of any negative information relied upon by the cooperative corporation in connection with any of its reasons for withholding consent.

The statement must be calculated to enable a prospective purchaser to take specific steps to remedy any specific deficiencies in that prospective purchaser’s application.” Board members must certify that the statement includes all of their reasons for the rejection and imposes serious monetary penalties on the cooperative for failure to provide such a statement.

REBNY has strongly opposed this legislation in the past on numerous grounds:

• First and foremost, there are substantial protections in existing Federal, State and City laws against discrimination of fourteen protected classes of individuals. A complaint under these laws will result in an exhaustive investigation during which the coop will essentially have to prove it did not discriminate.

• It will only result in increased litigation.

• It undercuts the legitimate and well established rights of cooperatives to set standards for buyers.

• It will delay transactions, and could easily keep units where complaints have been made off the market for months or years while the complaint is being resolved.

RMC members are urged to recommend that their clients contact their City Council member to oppose this bill. It is being pushed very hard by the sponsors and it is essential that Council members hear the other side. A sample letter for coop boards is attached and will be on our web site. Coop boards can easily find their council member and contact information at the website:
http://www.nyccouncil.info/constituent/index.cfm.

A copy of the bill can also be found at:
http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int01192006.htm?CFID=991187&CFTOKEN=52384671.

FORM*******************************


Dear ,

As a (board member or officer) of (address), a (#) unit cooperative in your district, I am writing to ask that you oppose Int. No. 119 of 2006 which is before the City Council. If passed, this legislation would require cooperative boards to state their reasons for denying approval to a potential buyer, with each board member certifying a stated reason for rejection within 10 days of the board’s decision. While that may sound like a good idea, it will have extremely negative impacts on cooperative buildings without increasing potential purchasers’ rights.

As you are aware, New York City cooperatives are a highly popular form of home ownership in our city. More than 332,000 households own shares in a cooperative corporation which holds title to the residential building. The corporation is governed by a board of directors, which like any corporate board, has substantial fiduciary and legal responsibilities to their shareholders. Recent court decisions have uniformly upheld the board’s right to make decisions on governing the corporation in privacy, applying the business judgment rule which prohibits judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good faith and in the lawful and legitimate conduct of the corporation’s affairs.

Int. No. 119 of 2006 will drastically restrict the rights of co-op board members, shareholders and property managers. It will also significantly delay transactions which will hurt the coop market as a whole. More important, it will substantially increase litigation in the marketplace, and make it difficult for coops to recruit qualified shareholders to volunteer their time to be a part of a co-op board.

Any discrimination by board members is expressly forbidden in City, State and Federal law. Currently, under the City Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the Federal Fair Housing Act, cooperative boards are prohibited from discriminating against a potential buyer on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, military status, sexual orientation, age pregnancy, or disability. There are remedies within each of these statues for a party who believes he has been discriminated against. The legislation does not add to these protections – that are already in place.

I urge you not to pass this legislation into local law.
Sincerely yours,

(T2)

Thank you, Thomas!

Excellent points that fill in many of the gaps we were trying to address.

Others: Read Thomas's post and cut & paste his suggested letter into your own document to mail to your city council member. Remember to cc it to Speaker Christine Quinn.

Unless you have a open meeting with everyone there. Boards will find a way to discriminate.You are asking to keep a secret process.That does and will discriminate