Bill Rank is the best, having done our Co-op's audits for more than 20 years. He's located not far from you in Purchase.

William J Rank
Tax Preparer | CPA

Bloom And Streit LLP

2900 Westchester Avenue,
Purchase, New York - 10577
(914) 253-8484

I guess this question is somewhat obvious, but I would still appreciate any insight from others who've dealt with apathetic Boards.

At a bare minimum, the attorney who handled your closing should have requested at least 1-2 years of monthly minutes as part of their due diligence. Ask them for a copy.

If your attorney allowed you to close without a review of the minutes or a good reason why he couldn't review them, I don't think he did an acceptable job for you. I don't know what the legal standards are for a proper review of co-op documents, financials, and minutes, but there should have been something he could look at and give a copy of to you.

It's my understanding that since the halls are "common elements", and change to the ownership of any part of a common element requires a shareholder vote. In these instances, no special status or privileges are conveyed to board members and board officers. They are treated the same as all shareholders.

It's my gut feeling that what the president did by arbitrarily appropriating a part of a common area, even if they paid for the space and improvements out of their personal funds, is not allowed.

My suggestion is to hire an attorney to review the co-op's foundational documents and advise on how to proceed. It would be helpful if you could get other affected shareholders to split the cost. Unfortunately, since you raised the issue after the additions have been completed, you may have to bring a court action to have anything reversed. This is not cheap. The attorney you hire will advise you.

Something else I just thought of. Measure the width of the hall at the narrowest point and research if this is smaller than fire and building codes allow. If the FDNY decides it's an unsafe condition, the dispute becomes your building vs the FDNY and Dept of Buildings and you can remain out of the action.

Good luck.

Hi

You should double check that your condo/building didn’t pay for this? Check the monthly financial reports now that you’re on the board. Also did they need a permit to do this? Who did the work?

The fact that it wasn’t communicated to you and it affects you is wrong !

Hallways are a minimum of 3 feet wide, an Engineer should have been retained to get drawings submitted to the DOB and approvals and have permits pulled, Cover your bases and exposure to lawsuits, Definitely a means of egress concern plus the, C of O " Certificate of Occupancy. Action is required.

Also check the monthly board meeting minutes. All this had to of been discussed multiple times and a Board vote should have taken place to do this project.

Per: "If the FDNY decides it's an unsafe condition, the dispute becomes your building vs the FDNY and Dept of Buildings and you can remain out of the action." ... Keep in mind that if it doesn't meet FDNY safety standards, your coop can/will get fined. That's an issue between the FDNY and your coop or board. And unfortunately, fines that fall on the shareholders. ; (

The overall footprint of the shareholder's property increased too there could be a cost associated. Flipside common areas shared by everyone is more of an issue no dought.

What is this and where does it come from? I do not recognize it as any of the official co-op governing documents. What vote or other means of adoption gives it any legal standing? Has anyone checked to see if any part of it contradicts the Proprietary Lease or Bylaws?

Has an attorney reviewed the contents of Code of Conduct and opined they are legal and binding on board members?

This appears to be an attempt to supplement or circumvent the PL and Bylaws, which can cause huge problems if a decision or action taken on their behalf is legally challenged.

If not already done so, I *strongly* suggest you ask your board attorney if they have any value whatsoever.

As far as I am aware, since board members are directly elected by the shareholders, only a majority or super-majority of shareholders can remove a director, and only at a special meeting requested by a defined number of shareholders. If an attempt is made to remove a director that is not 100% compliant with the PL and Bylaws, the director can sue, and you really don't want to deal with that.

Steven - You're correct about the ways to remove a member of the Board, but there is one other way - if the By Laws are amended (passed by a 2/3 vote of the shareholders) to allow removal by a majority vote of the Board - **but only with legitimate good cause**, which may include, but is not limited to...

- Breaching confidentiality
- Not acting in the best interest of all shareholders
- Making prejudiced/racist remarks towards s/h (including Board members)
- Not acting in a sound fiduciary manner
- Falsely accusing other Board members, management, accountant, of
financial impropriety

What is considered *not* good cause? A personal dislike of another Board member or disagreeing with another Board member's opinions and viewpoints.

This amendment to the By Laws was passed in our co-op after some outrageous behavior by a Board member.

We felt it was important to have this option because if a Board member goes rogue, the co-op's ability to make sound and confidential decisions on behalf of the s/h will be compromised. If it takes weeks or months to have that special meeting of the s/h to discuss/decide the matter, the co-op might be irreparably harmed.

I just read through the entire Code of Conduct, and the Subject of your post is very misleading. The CoC only mentions removing a board member from a board meeting, and not from the Board of Directors.

I suggest in the future you limit your posts to just the relevant parts of a document and not reproduce the entire document, and that you include a narrative at the beginning of your post describing what you are hoping other posters in this forum can help you with.

Unit owners are not entitled to know who lives at a condo in a nutshell. It is a privacy matter. The boards duty is to protect the financial interest of the corperation. I would assume the property manager and board do send out broadcast regarding issues such as the ones you have listed. Many boards do have the sublets contact information. But even then, any official communication from the board can come back to haunt them.

It is your job to lock your door at night. Not the boards. If a unit owner leaves their door unlocked they only have themselves to blame.

I see your point about Boards needing to be very careful in what they, and/or the management company communicate to non-owners, but I''m also encouraged that some condos do have a listing of all residents. Regarding letting strangers into the building, my point was that it may have been a subletter who let the suspicious person into our building. There seems to be quite a knowledge gap between the owners and the subletters.

Form a commitee and do some type of meet and greet and introduce yourselves but to control who comes in and out of the building?
Get a doorman would be the next best option and cameras.

You could say that its in the corporations best interest to know who resides in the building but this question should be put infront of a lawyer.

I totally agree that management and the Board have contact information on ALL RESIDENTS in the building. We (187 units) have just circulated a contact information form for all residents, to include sublets. We just had a gas leak and was not able to reach all persons in that line of apts. Thankfully no one was injured, but moving forward this should be the norm. No sense in coulda, should, woulda, after something happens when it possibly could have been prevented by a contact list.

What you describe is how most co-ops refinance their mortgages every 10 years. Each time, if extra cash is taken out to replenish the reserve fund, the principal amount needing to be refinanced increases.

I recommend that instead of a new 10-year interest-only mortgage, you look into a 10/30 mortgage. The mortgage term is still 10 years, but a little bit of the principal is also paid back as if it was a 30-year self-amortizing mortgage.

Ask your lender to calculate how much you have to repay each month so that the principal remaining at the end of 10 years will be the same as in the beginning. Remember that the more cash you take out, the more you have to repay, and the larger the monthly payments.

I hope this helps.

Thank you Steven, that is insightful. Is it just me or doesn't it seem like a co-op is just a scam/ponzi scheme?

If this is typical for a co-op...what happens in the long term if they just keep borrowing more money? Like what about it in 30-50 years? How is this sustainable?

This is a very good question, and I honestly don't know the answer. I don't think anyone thought that far ahead when the majority of co-ops were formed in the early 1980's.

Another looming issue facing co-op boards is the expiration of the Proprietary Lease. Check the first or second page of your PL. There should be a hard expiration date, which was required when the PLs were first approved.

If the expiration date is less than 30 years from today, new purchasers will find it increasingly more difficult to obtain 30 year mortgages. Why, because when the PL expires, the Co-op corporation will cease to exist and the shares in the corporation (i.e. the mortgage collateral) will have zero value. Banks are reluctant to underwrite mortgages where the collateral can be worthless. ;-)

For boards that haven't done so already, you should have a discussion with your board attorney to find out what they recommend. There are a number of ways to avoid this which is why your attorney needs to be consulted.

I wish Habitat would do an article on this so more co-ops aren't caught unaware.

Thank you for the insight. Another good article would also be about co-ops who have paid off their mortgages - if this exists?

Cellphones have Lithium batteries. I hope you have a durable suit of body armor and a good helmet... :-)

I totally get the dangers large and irresponsibly repaired LiON batteries pose, but there needs to be some leeway. Read up on the regulations being proposed by the Dept of Buildings and the FDNY for guidance. My building is struggling with the same issues. Our managing agent is working on something for all their buildings.

I wish I had more details to share, but this is a relatively sudden development. I hope some of the other posters on here can add to the common wisdon.

I'm sorry I can't add anything to the conversation. I too am looking for an answer. We have just banned e bikes in the garage. Only one person has requested an exception. Now I'm thinking he has put the e bike in his apt. NOW WHAT?

Our building is in the same boat. As Steven424 noted, you can't ban lithium-ion batteries outright, as they are the common rechargeable used in practically everything - including the laptop computer on which I am typing this.

At the same time, we can't count on the City Council to do anything meaningful to protect us. They have just passed some timid and naive bills that are unlikely to have any real effect on the problem. See this article, along with the comments at the bottom that point out the painfully obvious holes: https://gothamist.com/news/council-cracks-down-on-lithium-ion-batteries-amid-spike-in-e-bike-fires

Our board's current thinking is to ban eBikes and eScooters outright, with no exceptions, and regardless of where in the building they are stored. The risk is just too high. We're looking to do this very soon. We're also working with our managing agent to see what plans they develop for their other buildings.

This is a difficult question whose answer depends on the precise circumstances. Different courts have reached different opinions over the years. Google the case law on "holder of unsold shares," which is the advantageous position that sponsors want to preserve. A couple of observations (note that I AM NOT A LAWYER):

1. If the new owner lives in an apartment for even a day, the owner is no longer a holder of unsold shares for that apartment.

2. The Offering Plan is given precedence in most court decisions, even if the coop's governing docs say something else.

Check out Sassi-Lehner v. Charlton Tenants Corp. for some insights. Here's a good summary: https://www.lawpipe.com/New%20York/Sassi-Lehner_v_Charlton_Tenants_Corp.html

Again, you need to consult a lawyer on this. It's a very complex issue without a generic answer.