* * *

You've said the second page of the CNYC application form has some potentially discriminatory topics, related to the relationship of the occupants to each other and to the ages of any children living there. Where does the discrimination come in?

The New York City Multiple Dwelling Law contains a provision limiting the permissible density of people in an apartment. Therefore, the co-op is entitled to know that it will not be in violation of that law. For example, three adults living in a small studio apartment may violate the multiple dwelling law, which has definitions of the number of adults and children who may occupy an apartment based on the number of rooms and square feet of the apartment. So, the co-op is entitled to ask that question.

Most boards are not aware that they can turn to the multiple dwelling law for guidance as to how to say they don't want their apartments overly occupied. We, of course, warn the boards that they're not entitled to treat the marital status of the occupants, the sex of the adults, or the nature of the relationship differently than it treats married persons.

I didn't know that. Because we had a couple that lived together, and the son lived there, along with the son's child and his sister. And this was a place that was only 500 square feet.

You go to the Multiple Dwelling Law, and you work it out.

You have a section on pets, which we've already covered extensively in Habitat. All I'd like to say about that is that frequently the pets are better behaved than some residents.

I always start my CNYC classes with the question, "How many of you have failed to collect maintenance ultimately from every single shareholder at some point?" That is, how many people have lost maintenance because it wasn't paid and you weren't able to collect it? No hands come up. Then I ask, "How many of you have accepted a tenant who turned out to be a jerk or a real pain in the butt and you regret having approved them?" Seventy-five percent of the hands shoot up. My personal view is that boards weigh too heavily on the finances and not heavily enough on the human being that they're being asked to admit as a new neighbor. Most of the time it's absolute nitpicking on the financials rather than trying it find out "who is this person we're about to admit?"

Part of the reason for that, I guess, is fear of the discrimination laws. But that has skewed the process. The people who come in and sue because their upstairs neighbor flushes the toilet at 12:30 after The Tonight Show — or some other really trivial issue — are the co-op's worst nightmare. Once a co-op has a complainer or a litigious person or somebody who is obnoxious, the co-op is stuck with them unless it is prepared to incur significant legal expenses.

That's what you're trying to deal with here?

Yes. I strongly recommend that members of the admission committee call each of the references and ask at least the following two questions: first, "Did you write a reference for Mr. or Mrs. X?" You'd be amazed that it's not unheard of that somebody says, "No, I never wrote a reference." And the second question should be: "Do you have anything to add to your letter?" Since people are often asked for a reference in a context that makes it impossible for them to refuse, one can learn a lot from a flat statement, "I have nothing to add to that letter. Good-bye."

The person who's asking for the application may have actually prepared the reference letter?

Exactly. Or asks somebody who is in some sort of a subordinate position to the applicant. Our form also asks if the applicant knows someone in the building.

Why is that important?

Because you'll get an honest answer. The board should contact that person to know if they feel that this person is a proper neighbor. I am often asked if it is proper to call a mutual acquaintance of the applicant and board member and I always answer "Absolutely." Again you are looking for an honest appraisal of the applicant.

Next page >>