A sublet is a sublet. Unless the relative is a non-resident owner of the unit the surcharge applies.

The whole concept of coops was promoted with the idea that people who are owners will take better care of their building and watch out for problems, plus be involved in making sure that the board is conducting business properly, and they are also all checking the finances, not leave it up to one person, who could be embezzling for years and also be judgement free.

None of the non shareholders owners can not vote, nor can they speak at the annual meetings. The co-op i am in also has this problem, =it is approx 50% owner occupied now. This also gives the president an advantage ,since if he is letting these apartment violate par 14 the "and" clause, and also not charging them sublease fees, guess who the proxy votes will be for. The person that is accommodating the non owners while the value of the property decreases. An apartment that is 90% owner occupied will get a higher price and be easier to sell then a bldg with 50% owner occupied.
However our co-op president just lies, he says that apartment that have been vacant since 1983 are owner-occupied, as are the sublets by childrem of the owner, with the owner never moved into the apartment , not for one day. he calls those owmer occupied too. The last twp nuyer were told the building was 90 to 95% owner occupied, it has never been near 90%. Not one of these relatives of the owners gets involved.becaise legaslly they really cant, they are not the shareholder.
It a disasoer that need to ne addressed.
Ithos and other items that are against the BCL , which the AG refuses to act upon, including shareholder list and ability to see the financials if your proprietary lease states so.
send a bullet point list of all the problems the shareholders are facing. Violations of the BCL, self dealing, fiduciary irresponsible by allowing sublet which lower the value of the building. Send them to the Morlend committee, the DA on long island that is one of the heads in the investigation, and wnyc web page has a page of information on it . Start making it known every way possible. The AG signed off and approved the conversions, it is their job to enforce the cut and dry BCL's, like the shareholder and financials, .but they tell us to hire a lawyer to do their work
Commenst@morelend.ny.gov , is a way to bring all these cash cow building while the shareholder gets robed. i wrote them mpnths ago and they called 3 days before the end of the hearings, on Nov 27 th,I take that as a CYA but we dont want to hear anything, So i will let the DA involved know and all the newspaers, and all those co-op owners that think they have protection by the AG.

i made a typo up there, i am having a hard time spelling this word. but at least i caught it.
WNYC has the DA on Long Island that is hot on Albany
comments@morlend.ny.gov

Check the "Use of Premises" paragraph in your proprietary lease, which is typically paragraph 14. If it says something like "... a private dwelling of the Lessee AND Lessee's spouse, their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters ..." then the shareholder (Lessee) must be occupying the apartment along with the brother, or it's a sublet. If the word "and" is missing, however, then anyone on the list can live in the apartment without the shareholder being present, and it's *not* a sublet. That one little word makes all the difference. Consult your attorney for confirmation and details.

I agree - check the proprietary lease and if it reads XX AND then the Owner must reside with others - However if you read NYC Dept of Finance & NYS rules for the elegibility for the coop/condo abatements - both regular and special -Enhanced Star, Senior Housing, etc - then NYC and NYS s -say that only OWNER OCCUPIED APARTMENTS ARE ELEGIBLE- Unfortunately in my coop there are many many sublets - none legal - I have tried to have proper documents and fees required for these but definitely unsuccessful - In addition I have warned that eventually NYS, NYS etc will come down on us for these abatements they have been issuing for persons that are not eligible and I as a shareholder a) did not get these abatements and b) definitely do not want to pay because others received them illegally

is their any city.county state list of properties
residents in coops receiving abatement?
Does the cooperation receive any abatement?
I am in Westchester, so NYC abatement would not apply.
Also how many coop hold the yearly abatement and partition out out every month against the maintenance?
I know some coops give the star directly to the shareholder in a lump sum, this one keeps the money and takes a monthly star amount off the maintenance The question of this came up when a person selling , the buyers wanted the sellers STAR that the seller had earned. The sellers attorney who also had a coop with the same managing company said in his building the STAR was given the the owners in a lump sum, so this would not be an issue in his building.
I am sure there are many owners that are receiving star abatements that have never lived in this coop. i have been bringing up these illegal subleases per ch 14 of prop lease for over 6 years.
This policy by the board and managing agent has destroyed the cooperative building that i bought into at the conversion in 1983.
A apartment across the hall. that was an owner occupied apartment, was sold to someone that has subleased it to new people every 3 years, for about 20 years. There are many legal sublets that have ben subleased for 15 to 20 years, while the rule was 2 years. Some have been subleased since conversion, and they are not unsold shares.
Can i inform the managing company that i want the STAR in a lump sum? Where would i report fraud of the STAR plan too?

The STAR tax credit applies to owners residing in a property. The coop does not receive any STAR money for itself. I'm not aware of the availability of the STAR info to other than to the building owner (coop corporation) or management co. NYC is in the process of verifying the eligibility of the STAR credits this month, people who are not verified will be dropped. Most building seem to keep the money, and credit the maintenance accounts over 1 or more months. It must be credited by the end of June each year, I believe. As far as someone selling, I don't know how much it can amount to. It's only a few hundred dollars per unit, you're buying/selling something for $100-300 thousand and you're going to argue over $400.00? STAR is based on past ownership, so why should the buyer be entitled? The seller could ask for a credit if the credit has not been applied yet, but it's still not a lot of money.

the prices in out building have dropped approx 40% if the last private sale by a board member quoted price is to be believed, I have find out the board pres and probably more of the board has been openly blaming me for the price drop, because i have been bringing up ther owner occupied issues they are telling buyers 90% or more and it is under 50%. I also have been vocal on all the boards failures to abide by the BCL, ,the biggest, their financials and refusing to let them be reviewed as allowed in proprietary lease. When you have a micro manged coo-op with refusal of transparancy, The Board and managing company telling the owners at a annual meeting around 1998 that NYS had outlawed cumulative voting, which we had been doing since conversion, they did this once they got enough ringers on there m and even lowered the board to 5 when they saw they may get some honest people on the board.
There is so much fraud and corruption, Much can be proven , but their is no one to turn to AG, dont care DA dont care this is mortg=ager and insurance fraud, I tried to get the co-op issue into the morlend committee, since it is real estate lobbying groups that are stopping an ombudsman, and the AG refuses to enforce the BCL.
I know there must be a database of star recipients.I need to find out who to bring up the fraud info too, I already tossed it to the morlend committee.I want to get the board jammed for fraud , since i have been speaking out against their practices at annual meetings, and they are recorded. See if i can get them jammed for fraud, since they want to play the jailhouse rules game, of no stitching on the corrupt board, Thankyou Gov Cuomo for enabling this by your non actions and sleeping with the real estate people i am not paying for their corruption as a previous poster was concerned about. Being an original orner and here at the conversion, i cant be BS like the rest of the people.Newspapers soon. prefer a real lawyer first, so i coud just get out. Late annual audited financial, no audited financials, postmarks on the real estate mailings with the coops code on them, Fraud parking tickets for writing a complaint aginst their self dealing.

The courts cases involving this show that the use of the word "and" is ambiguous. In all likelihood, IMMEDIATE family is permitted to stay there wihtout the primary shareholders present and it is not considered a sublet. Especially if it has been the case for many years in any given building. If they are good residents and the bills are paid - why bother anyone?

What happens if the relative then brings in roommates? Thanks.

Habitat has run a couple of interesting articles on roommates of subletters (check out the archive under the topic "Roommates" if you have access). The attorneys seemed to agree that a subletter would probably have the same rights under the Roommate Law as the shareholder does: the right to one roommate without the consent of the board. The subletter would only be obligated to provide the name of the roommate. However, there were some questions on the details, and it was observed that this situation doesn't appear to have any clear case law behind it yet.

Eveyrone may have a roomate. This applies to all coops, condo etc . There is no grey area.
They may evern have a roommate who has a child. I.E. you can have a roommate and their dependent child living with you.
The roommate law is wonderful and helpful to many.

There are three sub-issues here.

(1) Yes, it is clear-cut that a co-op shareholder may have a roommate, regardless of what the proprietary lease says. The Roommate Law trumps the lease.

(2) It is very likely (but not 100% certain) that a subtenant in a co-op has the right to a roommate. Again, I refer you to the Habitat articles for detailed discussions by several attorneys, who are not in complete agreement. It appears that this issue has not been tested in the courts.

(3) Oddly, the condo case is in some ways the murkiest because a unit-owner is not a lessee, to which the Roommate Law applies. Here's a quote from "A Subtenant's Roommate" in the June 2012 issue of Habitat:

"As an aside, the law’s applicability to condos is far more cloudy. The owner’s occupancy of a condo unit is not granted by a “lease or rental agreement,” to which the law applies. So, the Roommate Law itself does not permit a unit-owner to take in a roommate; instead the condo bylaws would determine that. In fact, most do not expressly allow it, although New York State and New York City anti-discrimination laws might require it. The lessee of a condo unit arguably could, however, invoke the Roommate Law and bring in a roommate even though condo leases almost always are expressly subject to condo bylaws and other governing documents. That is because the Roommate Law makes any waiver in a lease “null and void.” On the other hand, a unit-owner also seemingly cannot grant rights greater than he has, so if the unit-owner cannot take in a roommate then arguably neither can his tenant."

If a coop or condo was allowed to only permit the shareholder(s) or owner(s), it would most likely be in violation of the law. What if the shareholder/owner got married or had a child? Or took in a roommate, domestic partner? You would have to modify the lease or deed? Would approval be needed? I don't think that would fly.
'Roommate' can be a cohabitant, but the key here is CO - residing WITH the shareholder/owner. If the shareholder/owner is not in residence, there can be no roommate. It would then be a sublet, legal or illegal.

TLP: Except for one early case from 1994 (Barbizon Owners Corp. v. Chudick), the courts have consistently held that "Lessee AND" is *not* ambiguous and *does* require concurrent occupancy by the shareholder. See this discussion in "The Cooperator" from 2009: http://cooperator.com/articles/1939/1/QampA-Subletting-Sisters/Page1.html Are you aware of any case since 2009 where a court has ruled otherwise? It seems pretty dubious, as this would have been a significant reversal.

There are other issues to consider, of course. The Cooperator article mentions that the board might be barred from acting by laches (failure to pursue their claim within a reasonable time). And as you note, many boards don't bother to enforce this provision, though you'd need to ask an attorney how this might interfere with their ability to enforce sublet fees for other apartments.

The use of the word "and " or "or" is ambiguous. Therefore the tenant or subtenant woudk probably prevail in a court case. Why dont you just let the immediate family member or subtenent alone?

MTK, please google the following cases (or check out the article by Siegler and Talel in the 11/03/2004 issue of the NY Law Journal):

Thwaites House Owners Corp. v. Vega
Wiesz v. 233 East 69th Owners Corp.
445/86 Owners Corp. v. Haydon

All of these cases ruled that "Lessee AND" was *not* ambiguous and *did* require concurrent occupancy by the shareholder. If you are aware of more recent cases that have ruled otherwise (the anomalous Barbizon case predates these), please let me know.

It's not unreasonable to leave the relative alone, but the issue is that it may affect your ability to collect sublet fees on other apartments. That's a question for your co-op attorney. I'm not a lawyer and am not sure of the answer.

JG: I agree that making an effort to regulate roommates of subtenants in co-ops - or roommates of anyone in a condo - is replete with thorny problems and is a bad idea. The Roommate Law may apply with 100% certainty only to rental buildings and shareholders in a co-op, but it seems very likely that it would be extended to subtenants and condos if challenged.

i remember in the 2010 annual meeting bringing up the excess number of non owner occupied apartments, many were parent child type, which the board let the parent buy for the child, or the parent lied in the interview the whole time, and the child who was never mentioned moved in. i informed the board that these were against our proprietary lease , par 14 and gave the copy of the NY law Journal? that had all these case laws that are mentioned above to show that what they were doing was against the proprietary lease. They continued to let parents buy and the children occupy, where we now might have a sub 60 or 50% owner-occupied ratio, plus no income from these parent child ones.This has destroyed the value of the apartments,Dropping 40 to 60%, which they blame on me, because i bring it up and have fought against it, since i know it ruins the value of coops and goes against the whole concept of allowing rentals to convert to coops. The board/managing company turned it back into a rental, but much worse for the original owners who now are senior citizens,disabled, and their home and security has been stolen from them