Hello. One of my neighbors has decided to leave a baby stroller permanently in the small entrance to my building. This is against the by-laws that state nothing is to be left in the common areas. This is not a case of the stroller being left for a day or two. It is permanently there. I have spoken to management as well as the board. They said they would speak to the neighbor. What transpired after that is that the neighbor tracked me down on facebook and sent me a nasty letter saying it's none of my business and that I better drop it. Management never followed up with me and neither has the board. Now I have an enemy in my building and I'm stressed out every time I come and go. I want the common areas clutter free. After living in rentals for 20 years with dusty, dirty hallways, I was looking forward to a building that was well maintained and managed - and paid for with my common charges. Oh and before the stroller, the same neighbors permanently parked their other kids bikes and scooters in the place where the stroller now is. So this has gone on for years. I'm considering talking to an attorney because the by-laws are not being upheld - and I've been harassed by the neighbor.> Join the conversation
I turned in a beautiful board package for a large downtown Manhattan Coop 3 months ago. It is a CASH purchase. There is nothing unusual in the packet. I have a beautiful credit history, a great job, a lot of money left over after the purchase. I have yet to hear from the board. I am thinking this is unfair and am wondering how unusual this is and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed.> Join the conversation Comments (1)
who owns the land the cooperative is built on? I assumed that the cooperative did , but i have heard from board members that this is not the case. If the land is not owned by the shareholders/coop is this universal and if it is an outlier, where in the proprietary lease would it detail the non-ownership of land.
Hi - Our coop require licensed and insured plumbers to perform work on the premises. However, in order not to spend money, they also sometimes ge the Superintendent to perform in-the-wall plumbing in violation of NYC laws. This has resulted in several instances of sub-par work that created damages and additional costs. However they persist in this. Sometimes (depending on the shareholder - i.e. it it is a board member) they will hire legal plumbers. Can we refuse to allow or permit illegal work be conducted in our apartments - work that creates possible liability for neighbor's and may also not be covered by our own insurance or the coop's insurance? Can we require the coop to send a legal plumber as per city laws and coop rules when it is work that they must perform? Please only reply if you know 100%. Thanks!> Join the conversation Comments (3)
I needed some work done in my apt. Rather than get an outside contractor I used the services of the building super. The managing agent gave the OK and no board approval was necessary. Other people in the building have used him without incident. But he does not like me because I yelled at his kids about 5 years ago and he was not our super at the time. I did not mind the skate boards or basketball on the concrete patio below my window because kids need activities and the neighborhood is dicey. But when the youngest one started having screaming meltdowns every 15 minutes I blasted them. He has held a grudge ever since and made it very clear when he took on the job. It looks like he did it for spite. He created a larger than necessary hole to do the plumbing work. When he finished he told me I had to plaster it up. But when he does work for other people in the building he has his underlings plaster it up. I remained silent because I knew this was done intentionally. When he returned and saw that I had not done the plaster work he questioned me about it. I told him that I would rather have a trap door to access the plumbing since it is so old and the building is leaking like a geiser not to mention the rust water that made me feel as if I was living in flint Michigan. He did not complete the work although he was paid in full. I called him and asked him when he would return to finish it and he began yelling at me that he was sick. I said ok ok calm down, I hope you feel better soon and then you can come over to finish it. He never came back but he tried to scam me out of $20 for a lock out fee. He told me to slip it under the door when I had cash since he does not take checks. I decided to hold off on the $20 so he would have to come looking for it and then I could get him to complete the work. He never showed up and after speaking with the MA I discovered that there was no lock out fee. I explained that he was not returning to finish the work he had started the MA became quite nasty and unreasonable. He told me it was between the super and myself because I hired him. I don't find this reasonable at all. If the MA gives the super carte blanch to do any type of renovation they should make sure he is competent to do the work. The MA also stated that the work was done during his private time. This is not the case it was a weekday during regular working hours which he was being paid for. Finally the MA told me that my kitchen was a non reality and he would discuss it with me when it became a reality. It was Friday he had plans good-bye. I hired another contractor on Saturday after getting some prices from him. I told him I did not need an estimate his prices sounded good just come over ready to finish the job. He was appalled at what he saw and had to correct some of the supers work to bring it up to specification. He wanted to know if I was going to sue. I told him I did not want to sue anyone I just wanted the work done. Where does this leave me, I don't want to sue him but I don't appreciate the rip off. The MA claims they have nothing to do with it despite the fact that the OK for him to do the came from him. Is he not insured to do the work? When the MA gives the OK shouldn't they stand behind their employee. I would not have hired him if I was made aware that there was no guarantee.
What is standard protocol and how should I go about rectifying the situation.
My co-op has limited on-premises parking consisting of garages and parking spaces. As such there is a waiting list for shareholders seeking on-premises parking. A board member maintains a garage for storage purposes only which is in violation of the House Rules. The board member is aware that he is in violation yet refuses to relinquish his garage claiming that as a shareholder he has a right to the garage. Can the Board & Managing Agent force the board member, or any shareholder, to relinquish the garage? Additionally, can a fine be assessed the the board member for each month he is in violation of the house rule?>> Join the conversation
Our co-op, located in Nassau County, recently revised the House Rules providing a categorically aligned table of contents and indicating fines for each violation. The board relied on house rules from other co-ops located in Nassau County along with input from the managing agent and co-op attorney to ensure compliance with the proprietary lease and any other regulations effecting the co-op. We have recently learned that courts have ruled in favor of shareholders when fines for house rule violations have been assessed. Can you discuss this issue?> Join the conversation Comments (1)
Introduce yourself to other members of Board Talk! Log in below or register here.
Board Talk members who registered prior to March 9th, 2016 will need to reset their password.
Habitat U: learn about how to manage a building, and what you should know as a co-op or condo board member.
Search, by word or phrase, all magazine articles from January 2002 to present. You may print or email your results. Print subscribers receive free access to the Habitat Article Archive.