I'm not trying to sound snarky, but are you sure the fees are *legally* not allowed? The Business Judgment Rule gives co-op boards a lot of leeway in imposing fees.

Unless an attorney actually told you to write "in protest" on your check, legally you might be doing yourself more harm than good. It doesn't sound as if writing "in protest" by itself will get the fees removed. If you withhold any part of your maintenance, at some point you could find yourself a party to an eviction suit.

I am not an attorney, but I have a lot of respect for the intricacies of the law and the administrative codes.

Steve - To clarify, many leases do not allow for the imposition of legal fees unless there is an actual default and a court determination.
This is to protect shareholders. If you have a bad or spiteful board they could otherwise abuse the situation.

Does anyone out there know the answer to the small claims option? - and, yes , writing 'in protest' on a check is a real thing.

Steve,
1) You write in protest" on the check.
2) They cash it.
3) You then take them to small claims court to get the money back.
Yes, this was originally advised by an attorney.

Hi, I believe the NYC DOB form you need is the PW1. Section 26A of that form is for co-op signature, where the co-op attests that they have reviewed and approved the proposed project. In order for the co-op to evaluate the project, you should be prepared to submit plans, references, licenses, budgets, tenant protection plans, covid safety plans, etc. -- whatever materials the co-op needs to feel comfortable with your proposed alteration in order to sign the PW1. That said, based on what you wrote, you may wish to reconsider your architect. Co-op renovations are unique given that shareholders do not own their walls or inside them (check your lease), and technically do not even own their units (instead, own shares in the co-op). An architect who does not understand this (apparently yours does not, based on the forms given to date) may not be sufficiently knowledgeable about co-op alterations to successfully complete the project.

I would back up "Christine E Nov 22, 2021" point that if the architect cannot provide you with the correct form seek another architect. Heed the Warning. The second concern and question is why wasn't your building management company able to tell you what the form is or provide you with the form? That is your second warning that this may not go as smoothly as you hope. The architect should know all about NYC and the Coop requirements. At this point sounds to me as though you are chasing after the architect and management and you should not be. Take a look at your contract with the architect, it should say that the Architect is responsible for submitting all the required paperwork to NYC and the management company. Talk to other Architects, doesn't seem like the one you have is alert.

How do the other board members feel about the president's odd position? Assuming the president is in the minority, that's the end of the matter. If a majority of the board has voted to raise maintenance or impose an assessment, the president has no override power.

If a majority of the board feels the same way, then it's trickier. At least in our Proprietary Lease (we're a coop), maintenance is "as determined by the Board of Directors." This grants power to the board to make the decision on its own, as is customary. However, I don't read this as a *prohibition* of using a shareholder vote to make the determination. I do agree it's a bad idea that abrogates one of the primary responsibilities of being a board member.

On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer, so you may want to consult one.

Have your co-op attorney, accountant, and/or managing agent talk to the board president to explain the need for a maintenance increase each year, and why not raising maintenance is a really *bad* idea. Maybe the president will listen to professionals.

If your president is intransient and still wants a shareholder vote, have your professionals attend the next shareholder meeting to give the same presentation. This may sway enough votes to get an increase passed.

Why do you feel Steven424 that the maintenance has to be raised every year.
Money can be raised by raising all amenities and sales of the apartments. Also the building can also have a yearly assessment, raising the maintenance is not the answer. Finding a way of lowering cost and cut building expenses would help.
The problem is the condo owners, they complain about the high assessment, why do you think they will except a yearly raise in maintenance. Everyone is moaning about the decision that the President wants everyone to have a say in running the building since they know best.
Let the owners write to the board about their concerns, no one I repeat no one should contact the building lawyer or accountant that is the Executive Boards job. Have a Happy and safe Thanksgiving

Have your building shareholders get together and vote the President out at next Shareholders Annual meeting.
In my building, the board does not get a Treasurers report( only the President and Treasurer are privy, we have to make an appointment with Property manager to see treasurers report) so we don't know what he have in accounts, so why would I vote for any increase, it's like voting blind.

It's my opinion, without knowing the ins-and-outs of your building and your rules, etc. that even if a sponsor doesn't "require board approval" for alterations, they should still be abiding by the House Rules as it pertains to work hours, utilizing insured and properly licensed contractors and obtaining any required permits from the city as may be needed.

With that being said, if you are not seeing this happen and illegal construction is taking place due to any of these factors, the due diligence that the incoming purchaser should do may point some of this out - especially if improper modifications to the apartment were made.

The Board could always go after the new Shareholder to obtain the correct permits and documentation from DOB, etc., where needed and since the issues run with the shares, and not the shareholder, they could require the new shareholders to file and modify the records / work to ensure full compliance.

Long story short, even if they don't need permission, they still need to follow all of the rules.

Agree with Mr. Levine. Sponsorship has nothing to do with construction requirements. If shower bodies and light switches are moving, the fact that it is a sponsor apartment does not make illegal plumbing and wiring magically safe.

Call DOB / 311 and register a building complaint. They'll send someone over. Not sure how to STOP the work, though you could suggest that if the work doesn't have permits etc. then it may have to be redone. Last thing he needs is a finished apartment that is determined to be inhabitable. Have to be forceful with this type of person, push as hard as he is pushing.

The Sponsor is absolutely required to have licensed and insured contractors and any sub-contractors must be licensed and insured. A sponsor just cannot do as he wishes he needs to abide by NYC housing codes. Email and Call the Housing department and provide the sponsor with a copy of the email. What action is the Board and the Management taking on this matter? Is the Sponsor the management company too? How many seats on the board does the Sponsor have? Where is the Board President and that is who should be objecting to this illegal work.

There are two areas of NYC laws that touch upon this. You are over 9 units, so the first definitely applies to you: The first is the Housing Maintenance Code, Article 13, and it states that "a building of 9 apartments or more" is subject to the requirements.

The second is the Multiple Dwelling Law Article 3/title 83, which states "a dwelling with thirteen or more tenants."

Both articles state either/or... a 24 hour janitor or housekeeper or a janitor can reside in the building or a janitor can reside within 200 feet of the building (or the agent or owner lives in the building).

If you have a responsible party for the Coop that lives in the building (the Board President, or the like) who can be responsible in an emergency, you can most likely satisfy the requirements of the Fair Housing Maintenance Code, which is quoted at the top. I would put that person on the Multiple Dwelling Registration of the building as well.

If a co-op incurs legal fees during the normal course of their operations, and the board votes a onetime assessment in the amount of those legal fees, I believe the board has the authority to collect the pro-rata amount of the assessment from each unit in the form of a debit on the monthly maintenance invoice.

Prevailing or not in the legal action has no effect on the board's power to authorize and collect an assessment.

If your Proprietary Lease says different, the board must follow the terms of the lease.

It does not relate to my point.

I apologize. Could you restate your point so I get it? Maybe offer an example?

Thanks.

No apology is necessary but I don't want to confuse readers.
This concerns legal fees being art arbitrarily placed on a shareholder maitenance statement that are otherwise the responsibility of the coop - fees that may relate to issues concerning that specific apartment but are not because of an actual default with a court determination. Thsi could otherwise lead to abuse and misuse by the coop. If a shareholder consults an attorney because they have a bad board or the coop is discriminating against them or that are being harassed by staff, etc. then those fees are the responsibility of the shareholder. Unless the shareholder commences a full court action and prevails.

"The general rule in New York is that each party to a litigation is responsible for its own legal fees, unless otherwise provided by statute or contract. The typical co-op lease’s reimbursement clause limits the coop’s recovery to reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements incurred in instituting an action or proceeding based on a default by the shareholder, or while defending or asserting a counterclaim in a proceeding brought by a shareholder.

Unless the recovery of attorneys’ fees and disbursements is specifically provided for in the lease clause, courts have held that a co-op does not have a right to recovery. It is common for a board to incur legal fees relating to a shareholder default or a violation of a lease without ever beginning any legal action. Legal fees for consultation with counsel, preparation of demand letters, and counsel’s communication and negotiation with a shareholder or a shareholder’s attorney may all occur before a lawsuit begins. However, these pre-litigation fees and costs are not recoverable under the standard lease provision.

There are also legal disputes that do not involve defaults and may not even necessarily arise from a shareholder’s wrongdoing. Unfortunately, boards are not able to recover legal fees for these either under the standard lease provision.

Even if legal fees are incurred in a litigation, and even if they arise from a shareholder’s default, New York courts require that the co-op be the prevailing party in the proceeding in order to recover legal fees. This requires the successful party to win on the central claims in the litigation in order to obtain substantial relief, even in a settlement."

Most cooperatives allow one vote regardless of how many shares the unit has. Unless your co-op has cumulative voting which is one vote per share, it is not necessary to have the number of shares on the Proxy/Ballot. A provision in your occupancy agreement and house rules will explain your voting procedures.

The official number of shares per unit should be maintained by the Board Secretary and/or Managing Agent. A line on a proxy form where the share count is supposed to be filled in by the shareholder is meaningless because it is often inaccurate or wildly exaggerated.

I've seen a number of different voting schemes, and as far as I know, the Bylaws are the authoritative source for determining how votes are counted.

We also have a line for number of shares on our standard proxy, but the presence of the line isn't terribly important. The apartment has a fixed number of shares and this number is easily verified, regardless of what the shareholder writes on the line.

Concerning the prior comment by "NYC": in the great majority of coops, voting is *absolutely* weighted by shares. One vote per unit is rare in coops. In standard voting, if your unit has 100 shares and your board has seven members, then each person you vote for gets 100, regardless of whether you vote for one person or seven. With cumulative voting - which is only allowed if your coop's Certificate of Incorporation permits it - you can pile up your votes on fewer people. Continuing the example, you could vote 700 shares for one person instead of 100 shares for each of seven people.

Thanks Carl, that's what ment. Your explanation was much clearer. one ballot per unit, one vote for each candidate. I come from background n corporate proxies where the shares are a necessity on the ballots.

Based on the scenario you describe, the attorney representing you in this transaction should be all over the board and managing agent to shake this free and move it forward.