I have googeled around and so far it looks as if this is not a legal situation and the attorney general's office might be notified. no?

currently there are 60 sold units and we pay $575 per year per unit to the Managing Agency. The other 28 are sponsor owned.

Is $575 per unit high for an upper west side cooperative - 99th st?

We pay about $511 per apt (in a building with fewer apts than yours) in Hudson Heights.

As for hiring a managing agent ... the corporation hires a managing agent to handle the corporation's affairs.

I don't understand how the sponsor can hire a managing agent to run the building as well. I mean, the super reports to the board, not any one shareholder, even if it's the sponsor.

Have a discussion with your corporate counsel. He/She can figure out what's going on.

The discussion that was there a while back is still valid:

1. The sponsor retains its own management comapny to handle its units.

2. The co-op handles the co-op affairs, the individual shareholders and the sponsor.

3. The co-op management works for the co-op not for the sponsor. The co-op management may need to interact with the sponsor for preparation of amendments, sales, etc., but the loyalty is to the co-op, not to any individual shareholder or sponsor.

4. What the sponsor pays its management for managing the different builidngs they may have, its their own business and does not impact the co-op costs.

5. A maangement company not only represents co-ops, but sponsors. Just make sure your current maanagement company does not represent the sponsor in your co-op and everything is save.

The rest is bogus!

AdC

4.

You gotta bone up on your facts, man. Your posting makes no sense. PLEASE read the bylaw of our coop which we posted previously.

"All dwelling units in cooperatives occupied by nonpurchasing tenants shall be managed by the same managing agent that manages all other dwellings in the building. The law applies to both units owned by the sponsor and those by individuals.''

What this means is as follows:

1. The managing agent designated by the board of the co-op (if this were independent) represents the co-op at large. It does the maintenance collections, it pays the co-op payables, it contracts general contractors to take care of co-op responsibilities (boiler, heat companies, plumber for infrastructure, etc), it sends the letters to individual shareholders and to the sponsor management for house rules violations, it may act as the transfer agent for the co-op at large, it interfaces ith the banks, unions, etc as the agent of the Corporation.

2. The sponsor management is the AGENT for the sponsor. In its capacity it does not overlap with the CO-OP management because its role is as follows: manages the units the SPONSOR owns in your building and other buidlings by collecting the rents, following eviction notices for its own tenants that do not pay their rents, PAYING the co-op for the MAINTENANCE OF THE AGGREGATE NUMBER OF APARTMETNS IN YOUR BUILDING,will respond to the basic needs of its own subtenants in your buidling and other buildings, e.g., fixing old refrigenerators, dishwashers, changing faucets, crack toilets, etc. It RAISES problems that its subtenants may have in your co-op on their behalf, i.e., NOISE, parking needs, water penetration, etc. AGAIN, the level of interaction may have to do with procedures that boards establish within their co-ops, represent the sponsor on the board if it retains a sit, does the budget for the SPONSOR for internal repairs of units, changes of appliances, MAINTENACE and ASSESSMENTS that different co-ops may pass, etc.

So, to conclude, the activities of both managements are different and the SPONSOR management's role is the same as that of an individual shareholder. I for one, must pay my maintenance on one unit, replace or repair my refrig, A/C, dishwasher and look for a contractor to do any improvements in my apartment.

So Mr. BIG AL, think before you speak!!!

AdC

I know you may not like the suond of it - but all apartments are part of the corporation and there is to be ONE managing agent according to the law. This certianly seems to be a better envoronment for communication - to one source - one agent. than having the consusion of two. You may not like it - but this is the law.

what do you dislike about it so much?

If you have made up your mind, then thee is no enlightenment and you have closed your mind to all sort of reasoning. So, there is nothing else to talk about. It's illegal in your mind and that's what counts to you.

In my mindset, an owner of multiple units may have its own agent to manage its investments and represent in public the interests of that investor.

Good luck with your reasoning!

AdC

you have some hidden agenda thing you are not saying. the attorney general says no to tow managing agents and that is that.

The discussion that was there a while back is still valid:

1. The sponsor retains its own management comapny to handle its units.

2. The co-op management handles the co-op affairs, i.e., the individual shareholders and the sponsor, plus all the managment issues on behalf of the co-op.

3. The co-op management works for the co-op not for the sponsor. The co-op management may need to interact with the sponsor for preparation of amendments, sales, etc., but the loyalty is to the co-op, not to any individual shareholder or sponsor.

4. The sponsor pays its OWN management for managing their units in your builidng and other buildings. The co-op does not pay any money for the sponsor's management..

4A. The sponsor management may represent the sponsor on your board. So, treat the person as a professional because this person usually knows his/her business better than you do. So, getting along with this person will be a good source of informaiton, but REMEMBER, that person is there to represent the sponsor, not necessarily your interests. In other words, the interest of the co-op and the sponsor may be similar, but not 100% the same. The reason the person serves there is to make sure the board makes reasonable decisions on maintenance and assessments that does not greatly impact the sponsor's interests.

5. A maangement company not only represents co-ops, but sponsors. Just make sure your current maanagement company does not represent the sponsor in your co-op and everything is save.

The rest is bogus!

AdC

In our Coop the Management represents us and works for the Sponsor!!

Miriam,

What does your plan of conversion tell you about sponsor giving up its control? This is the most critical aspect of the governance of the co-op. When does the sponsor is supposed to relinquish in great part its influence over the co-op for purposes of conversion?

Again, boards must understand their documents and read them to get some very basic answers. The second part is getting assistance from co-op or independent counsel to interpret and act on behalf of individual shareholders so that they may start taking over governance.

AdC

AdC
Thank you. I'll have to rescue it, read it carefully and I'll come back to you all

I have several buildings where i manage the sponsors end and the coop end of the building. This is not a conflicting situatino for me or the building.

It needs to be realized that the sponsor has more of a vested interest in the property than any individual shareholder and wants the apartment and property value to raise, probably more than you do. All my decisions as a manager are exclusively with the interest of the cooperative in mind... if it prospers, the sponsor prospers.

A good manager is not a slumlord type of manager, if he has this mentality, then you have a problem as he will not want to spend adaquately on repairs and upgrades. In this case, he/she should only manage for the sponsor.

I have an excellent relationship with all 4 of my buildings where i manage both ends. My Boards like me, are not bound by a sponsor who maintains control, or any agreement... 100% free will. As a matter of fact, one building had a change of board and the new boards mission was to "graduate to a level where the sponsor is not managing the building..." Long story-short, they have since asked me to manage the building again because they didn't realise that I went way over and above in my duties as manager (in part because I managed 100% of the building).

So, like anything else, do your homework on the sponsors mindset, the management company, the manager himself and then make an informed decision based on your individual needs and findings...
Good luck

Read his/her answer. Very interesting and I don't disagree with the point of view expressed. The real issue is INTEGRITY and from your answers in the past, I believe you have it!

Thank you for your contributions.

AdC

Thank you for your complement!

Can you tell me how to contact you directly.

email me and i will give you my cell #
reapllc@aol.com

AR
(Anthony)

Right, we checked it out with an authority. A coop , comprised of both sponsor-held apartments and regular shareholders may NOT have two Managings. Period. THEY MUST HAVE ONE. Otherwise it is a violation of the General Business Law. Complaints can be made to various city agencies to remedy this.

Taking a Stab at Clarification

One Cooperative Apartment Corporation- One Managing Agent- A cooperative apartment corporation, in the eyes of the federal, state, and city governments, is one legal entity. As such, the cooperative corporation provides one point of contact for “legal service” for everything pertaining to that specific cooperative apartment corporation. This ‘entity’ can be a managing agent, and in the case of a self-managed coop, that can be either an officer of the corporation or corporate counsel to the corporation; not both in any combination. The operative phrase is one corporate entity with one legal respondent.

Two Responsible Entities For One Coop Apartment Unit in a Cooperative Apartment Corporation- The cooperative apartment corporation is known as the lessor. The tenant-shareholder (known as a lessee) owns a specific number of shares assigned to a specific apartment unit. The lessor and lessee enter into a proprietary lease which delineates the specific rights and obligations of each party to and with each other. This is a one to one relationship within the cooperative apartment corporation.

With Three Comes Potential Confusion- Should an apartment be occupied by a rental tenant, the rental tenant’s “landlord” is the tenant-shareholder of that specific apartment unit. Therefore, the “landlord” to the renter is also the lessee, not the lessor. The lessor has no direct legal responsibility to the rental tenant. The lessee can have a direct person to person relationship with the tenant renter or may engage another to act on his/her behalf as the ‘agent,’ for all things s/he is obligated to in the landlord-tenant relationship. This arrangement does not imply that a cooperative apartment corporation has two managing agents. This ménage a trios involves both an internal and external set of relationships based on different rights and responsibilities of each.

Sponsors And All That Jazz- In a cooperative apartment corporation, a sponsor is, in a sense, a lessee of the units under
his/her control and may engage his/her own agent to act as landlord for his/her responsibilities to a tenant. It is possible this ‘agent’ may turn out to be one and the same serving as a sponsor delegate on the board of directors and even potentially as the cooperative apartment building’s one managing agent. For sake of this post, the topic on whether or not such cross representation works or does not is confined to mentioning that I’ve seen it work in harmony and integrity and I’ve seen the opposite.

Seems very fudgey wudgey to me.... one managing agent is one agent. The bils, repairs etc of rent controlled/regualted tenants still inthe coop must all be managed by the same office as the shareholders. The other descriptions just seem to be a long flowery stretching of things. NO?

Plus it is inthe interest of the coop to keep the sponsor as seperate from things as they can.

I manage several buildings on second avenue, between 62 and 96 streets. I am using REAP, who came highly reccomended, but I have not any prior experience with them. The reports they did for my building were extremely detailed and we even are using it for identifying and budgeting capital improvements and future repairs. The cost was fairly inexpensive and worth the investment.
I got this from thier website "Without us, you may end up spending years in court chasing financial remuneration for damages that you cannot prove were not existing, or did not happen from other circumstances." - REAPConsultingllc.com - I know first hand this to be true. Do it.

PLEASE do not say this Q has been addressed before - fresh start needed. also I think there is no C of O for the space in question.

There is something called plan of conversion or blue book that provides a description of the building facilites, storage areas or dead space and the spaces with assigned shares. The corporation is the owner of the building. The sponsor only own unsold shares of apartments. If there is any special provision to keep certain areas of the builidng (which I certainly doubt) the plan of conversion and documents contained in it should have the information spelled out. If no such provision exists, the co-op is well to reclaim its space through maangement and ultimately through the co-op counsel if necessary.

Rumors has it... it's not good enough! Finally, some of the enclosed spaces may not be habitable and could not be used as recreation or expansion of a unit for lack of adequate ventilation. So, even if the co-op were to dream a recreation room, it would have to consult the code to ascertain that can be used as such.

AdC

Thank you AdC for your clear response. We have similar situation
Miriam

thanks aDc!
facts: the area in question has severl windows inc two on street level.
in the offering plan it states: " the sponsor is expressely reserving to itself or designee, the right to alter or rehab said basement apartment as well as the right to create one or more basement apts..." then: the sponsor may alter such wtihtout permission from the coop plus , once done, he may be present a letter from a brokerage firm stating how many shares are to be issued for said apt. - it then goes on to say there are unissued shares of the corp. which will then be issued to this space.

Note: something seems not right here.

Conversion plans give certain rights to the sponsor that cannot be taken away by the corporation. In your case, your building has a space that does not have shares nor pays rent, but was retained by the sponsor because the space has value but was never improved, a C of O may be obtained if improved, shares may be assigned without the co-op opposition and sold without the corporation's blessings or being able to voice an objection.

Obviously, the corporation may enter into negotiations with the sponsor so that it may purchase the currently unimporved space for the benefit of its shareholders. If this is your wish, then the co-op should approach the sponsor and work out a deal. Speak with the co-op counsel and let him/her start the ball rolling.

For example: our co-op had commercial space that was retained by the sponsor and later sold to the co-op. Later on, one of the many boards converted the offices to commercial space with assigned shares.

This is why I directed you to consult the bible of the co-op relating to what belongs to the co-op: the conversion plan and its amendments.

AdC

Just to echo in support...
I have a coop where the sponsor retained basement space as commercial and maintains control of this space. (I happen to be the manager for the sponsor in this particular case). But if this is the case, it would be clearly outlined in the offering plan.


AR

Thank you for your posting but Something does not sound right to me. It may well be theat the coop has a good claim on the space in question.

1) The Sponsor has never had shares issued for this space, never paid a cent of mntnce nor taxes for it -

2) PLUS, techinacally there was one other "apt" in the basement (with on old kitchen, etc) and the coop has "leased" this from him for storage for no charge. IE there has been an acknowlegement fromt he sponsor that the first apt was THE apt. The offering plan only mentions he has claim to "one apt" in the basement plus "additional space" (which is incredibly vague.)

any lawyers out there?? BP?

Big Al: I'm not a lawyer but I think you need one on your basement space issue. It sounds rather involved. You need a professional to read your plan carefully and interpret it for you. If your coop doesn't have a lawyer, "retain" one to resolve this. Anyone out there able to give Big Al a referral for a good coop lawyer?

One thing that struck me odd was that you said the sponsor has the right to have a brokerage firm determine how many shares could be assigned to the basement space. As I said, I'm not a lawyer but since when can a brokerage firm do this in and of itself? Big Al, you need a lawyer.

did you read the quote in the posting from the 'offering plan'? It appears, not yet. please get fully informed before you spout an answer out. you have to keep up with BP now!

Mr. Big Al. Apparently you forgot the fact that you posted "the facts"as a rsponse to "my spouting"of the answer. Just look at the day and times and the indentation to understand that!

Finally, I do not compete nor I care to compete. This is a forum to give ideas. In fact, many of the questions may be easily answered by referring people to the basic documents of the co-op, and asking your co-op counsel when in doubt in spite of the money it may charge you. After all, when you are a board member you are not paid, but you are expected to discharge your duty by exercising your fiduciary responsibility, and your ability to act with justice, obsjectively and compationately at times.

This is the last one for you!!!

AdC

I think both of your are right. But they might be some misunderstanding here. However, there is only one "Coop" managing agent. The Sponsor reserves the right to self manage his units or hire a management company to manage them for him. The coop managing agent manages all the cooperatives apartments including the sponsors regarding business of the cooperative. The duties do not usually overlap. This website serves everyone best by staying positive, not everyone is going to have the right answers all the time. I monitor this site daily and for the most part remain silent. As property managing is very dynamic all information offered by most that frequent this site should be well received and feedback should always be constructive. The bottom line is no one comments here should be anyone’s bible in managing their complex, take what information is useful, do your homework, and appreciate offered help regardless if you feel it is not necessarily entirely correct.

Best Regards,

RH

IN your case, I would speak with the co-op counsel who would be modifying the C of O if necessary. A doctor's office may be interpreted as a dentist (d.d.s) or a psychologist as well.

However, since you wish to make the use of the offices as open as possible, it may be called professional (for accountants, financial advisors or anyone who holds a license to do business) or just plain commercial.

Good luck!

AdC

(1) The co-op as owner of the property is liable. It's your duty to ascertain that the A/C is appropriately installed so that it does not fall and hit anyone. Therefore, you must ensure that the contractor hired by a shareholder is reputable and has appropriate certificates of liability.

(2) Always go for the highest standard no matter what, even when one does not exist. This is what is called corporate stewardship.

AdC

(1) The co-op as owner of the property is liable. It's your duty to ascertain that the A/C is appropriately installed so that it does not fall and hit anyone. Therefore, you must ensure that the contractor hired by a shareholder is reputable, KNOWS AND DOES THE INSTALLATION ACCORDING TO THE CODE and has appropriate certificates of liability.

BP you out there?

I'm out here, Big Al. I'm not sure of the law but I think the same precautions and liabilities should apply for a/c's in non-street facing windows - anyplace people might be below. We have a rear yard where the super keeps big items for bulk pickup and bldg materials so he's often out there. We also have side walkways that movers, contractors, etc. use to enter the rear of the bldg with furniture, heavy equipment, etc. They're outdoor paths that separate us from bldgs next to us and windows with a/c's are on those sides. Anyone on any side of the bldg could be hit if an a/c fell out a window. Even if the law only specifies windows that face the street, good judgment should dictate that proper care be taken on whatever side of the bldg has a/c's or other projection that could injure people below.

in attempting to ascertain the truth to this bracket thing - it appears there may actually not be any such law - that, in fact , the code states an AC may not extend more than ten inches from the property line of a building. I am still working on this one so hod on for full facts:

§[C26-407.5] 27-311 Permission revocable. - Any
permission, expressed or implied, permitting the
construction of projections within the area of the street
under the provisions of this subchapter shall be
revocable by the council or the board of estimate,
except footings as permitted under subdivision (a) of
section 27-314 of article nine of this subchapter.
§[C26-407.6] 27-312 Existing projections. - Any part
2) ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. - Details such as
cornices,.... air conditioning units, and other similar
elements may be constructed to project not more than
four inches beyond the street line when less than ten
feet above the ground or sidewalk level, and not more
than ten inches beyond the street line when more than
ten feet above the ground or sidewalk level.

(1) This link provides NYCDOB “Tips” on window AC installations, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/ac_tips.pdf , NOTE: it states that “a work permit or equipment use permit is generally not required for the installation of a common window A/C unit, unless the unit exceeds three tons/36,000 BTU/hr. See section 27-184 (a) of the Building Code (found online under the Reference Materials link at www.NYC.gov/buildings) for more details.” Further, it includes “make sure the unit is installed securely. Support the A/C unit from underneath or firmly fasten it from inside with angles. Metal brackets, mounting rails, etc. may be used for a safe installation.”
(2) If the building’s height requires Local Law 11/98 Inspections, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/locallaw_1998_package.pdf , { excerpted: “(3) Report requirements.(i) The professional shall …..a written report….. clearly documenting all conditions not classified as safe …. (ii) The report shall include: …..(G) all conditions including …., and the deleterious effect of exterior appurtenances, including ….. window air conditioners, flower boxes, etc. The report shall classify each such condition as safe, unsafe or safe…..”}.
(3) In my experience, most, not all, LL 11/98 filing engineers consider window a/c brackets to be an integral part of considering the unit safe; without a properly secured bracket, they do not. LL 11/98 covers all facades, street AND none street elevations. Where prudence mattered, client-boards adopted a house rule (and alteration agreement addendum), in accordance with the NYCDOB Tips, above. (T1)

can anyone out there please help me???

i have been in my co-op for 2 years now and have experienced nothing but heartache.
i have been complaining about mold for 2 years now around my air conditioner and have not gotten anyone to come look at until last week. when someone did come take a look at courtesy of the board,not only did they not fix the mold but they said it was because of my airconditioner sleeve. they took out my air conditioner changed the sleeve and left my air conditioner sitting on the floor. they refused to put it back in. they said the board told them not to put it back in. THEY NEVER TOLD ME THIS UPON THEM COMING IN AT ALL. HE TOLD ME HE WOULD PUT IT BACK IMMEDIATELY. they have also complained that i am using a 220 volt amp to run my air conditioner which was allready established before i moved in and one that they have seen during 3 inspections they have done. They are abusing thier power in order for their electrician and air conditioner people to get paid.
CAN SOMEONE HELP ME!!!!

Folks,

1. Do you have a certified licensed engineer to write the specifications?
2. What is the rating of the window in terms of wind speed penetration and PSI force?
3. I am not promoting Traco, but this URL provides an ample number of “definitions”.
4. Do search some more definitions via the Internet.
5. And, do note that all windows are not created equal.



1. In our 500 unit NJ co-op, we picked windows with a reasonably “high” resistance to wind penetration.
2. We replace only 15% of the windows each year so that we can be absolutely satisfied with the installer and the windows. If you replace all the windows, you may face issues that are insurmountable. Neighboring buildings have encountered just such a problem.
3. Scheduling is easier with smaller batches.
4. If there is a product defect as occurred with us a year ago, we needed to delay the window program. With a smaller batch it was far easier than rescheduling the entire building.
5. And with smaller batches we need not row” and thus use our capital reserve fund and our yearly assessments.
6. We do not have a punch list as our “outside engineer” certifies each installation before the workers depart the apartment.

Newbie - I don't know the name Gamco. We have double-hung tilt-out white windows - the standard type many bldgs have. If this is the style you're considering, $3-4K per unit is way too high. $898 per unit is about right. For 2 windows per unit, that's $1500 v. $450 per window.

Our owners use various vendors and typically pay $400-450 per window. A few who hired high-priced architects to do renovations paid much more. Their windows may be a little better quality but look the same as the others in the bldg. Those owners paid for "name" more than anything else.

Two vendors our owners use are very reliable, do good work, etc. If you want, I'll give you their names/numbers. They naturally can provide many other window styles as well as the standard tilt-out type.

Thanks, BP. I would appreciate the names of the window replacement vendors you mentioned. By the way, the Gamco window estimate was $898 for the total of two window per unit. The windows are about 52 wide and 35 high. Actually, Pella came in at $4400 -- had them give an estimate to see what the high end would be like, then, two other vendors came in 3-4K for Crystal windows.
Thanks again,
BN

Newbie - Your windows aren't the standard size ours are so I don't know what the price might be, but the two vendors some of our owners used are both reliable and do good work. One is Shapiro & James Mirror and Glass (ask for Terry, I think he's still there) at 718-292-3000. Their prices are higher but our owners had only good things to say about them. The other is FSFL Enterprises (ask for Virginia) at 718-461-1291. This is a smaller company but I was told they are very pleasant to work with and have good prices.

Good luck --

I have replaced many windows, in many buildings... Crystal windows, who you mention should run you about 4-500 per window, Unless you are putting in tilt/turn picture windows, this is the right price, your other quote is way too high.
I use Larsen Windows - 718-492-4998 - Glenn Larsen, they can provide many samples and different windows in that range.
All windows are not equal, but they all do have special ratings and certifications, this is what you compare... forget whart the salesman says.
Good luck
AR

As AR says, not all windows are created equal by way of ratings. Depending on the height of the building, and location re wind, etc. you may use HC-40 as a minimum. If you are a garden apartment complex you may use vinyl windows. If windows are too wide ( > 42 inches) and you are going for double hung windows, you should equip the lower sash with ultralift balances, which may add to the cost of the window $55+. The window size may be more appropriate for a slider. Is this what you have now?

AdC

Yes, ADC, we have sliders now, which were installed when building was rehabbed and converted in 1986. In several units there is a heat deficiency which could be linked to the degradation of the windows and gas over time. Or we may need to add more baseboard heating to the existing units. Our thinking is that we should try to retain the heat by replacing worst-case windows and see if there is an increase in temperatures in cold units. We should probably hire an engineer to consult with us on solving the problem but some Board members don't want to pay the cost for an engineer. Any thoughts on this? Thanks, BN

Maxx was our managing agent for 7 years. Once they took over, they really got our building into shape. The property manager worked closely w/ our super (who complained a lot but he needed a babysitter), and the account executive assigned to our property always replied to questions or problems from board members and residents promptly. We'd still be with them if it wasn't for their new $25K minimum management fee (nearly 40% increase over what we were paying).

We used JRD several years ago. We fired them after less than a year. We went through three property managers in that time. One of them took far too many liberties running the building (without consulting the board). We lost a lawsuit in part -- but maybe only a quarter part; there were other issues -- because of this person.

After hiring a new mgt co, we didn't get all of our records back.

There were no financial irregularities, however, and I can't imagine that the same property mgr still works for Maxx.

If it's a new company, it may be just fine. As I mentioned, this example is from several years ago.

any bad experiences with Century?

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