Frank, this is a muddy area and we'll appreciate your article. Our management company advised us to have work orders but it was never clear how they were to work except for materials to be charged back to the residents, not the super's time. Thank you again.

Many years ago we had a handyman, but the job was phased out. Our Super/poters now do odd jobs -- on thier own time. We have compaired what we pay, and it varies greatly, so we are very interested in your artical.

My neighbor paied the Super $50 to install his new stove -- whereas the stores charge between $150-250. Most of us pay the Super between 20-30 to install the AC into the window in the summer.

Thank you, VP

This is great info, VP. If we could, I'd love to speak with you for 7 to 10 minutes, say -- and we needed't identify your building, if you don't want -- to see how this informal system works, and what the pros and cons of a formal system with a price list might be.

I can talk to all the managing agents in the world ... but without talking to you folks on the front line, with your real-world knowledge and experience of what works, day-to-day, in practicality, then I can't do other boards as much good. Please e-mail me at flovece@habitatmag.com so that I could call you and we can talk for a couple minutes for this story.

You'd be giving other board members great help. Thanks

How do you handle the liability issue of a building employee doing private work for tenants?
If an a/c/ falls out of the window or a stove gas line explodes how does the insurance company view the work that was performed?

Is your Building Super/handyman specifically insured (privately or under the building policy) to perform such tasks?

Matt,
This is an excellent question, and I am going to look into this with the Board.
Perhaps this is something Frank could explore in his artical

If we had a legal system for work in place, we could specify the jobs, and what would be covered by insurance. Our Super is a plumber -- but otherwise I dont know...
Thanks, VP

That's absolutely something the article covers. Got to hand it to our ever-astute readers to know what's needed! And while I've spoken with managing agents and attorneys for this piece, I could sure still use a board-member with first-hand, in-the-trenches experience! flovece@habitatmag.com

Charges for work: Our building has people living on fixed incomes, (now unemployment) and people who have no finincial worries... Therefore if there is a pricing list, perhaps it should list the minimun gratuity.

Gratuity? Perhaps if its called a gratuity, as oppose to payment/employment,,,this would have an impact on the Insurance question????

FL, could you post your number and I will call you... Thanks...VP

Hit me with an e-mail at flovece@habitatmag.com and I'll send a phone number; I'm not in the office today. Thanks!

Do they do an audit of your current usage and tell you where you can save? For a NYSERDA Smart Loan, we used a consultant from L&S Energy Services. Ron Slosberg, 518-383-9405 x.216 (rslosberg@ls-energy.com) and the Board was happy with his work.

We managed a 734-unit Condo in Brooklyn for 15 years that had a dedicated pool company to open, staff and close the pool. Lenny Moroff is the owner of Trident Recreatio.

Website here: http://poolmanagementservices.com/

Try some of the following web sites.

Superintendents Club of New York
Emereald Guild Association
Hibernia providence society

You can also do an independent web search of superintendent/handyman orgainizations in NY as there are many more out there

Best of luck Bob.

Thank you, I will do just that

That is true..

I work as a Resident Manager here in the city. What I do if a noise complaint surface's is we ask that the resident who is complaing contact the front desk with a noise complaint so one of the staff members can go up and verify what that resident is complaing about. I personally have been called well into the night and in some case's the complaint was justified in others it wasn't. Best have another opinion.

Regarding, noise complaints I agree with the previous response from the Resident Manager. This is how I have addressed noise complaints in the past. The shareholder would be advised to call the front desk when they hear the nose/sound.The concierge would then send someone from staff (2 if necessary,) to investigate the report. A report would they be written up for management/board to follow up on the claim. The staff names would be kept confidential. I have found this method to be very successful in the property I manage.

Bob

In certain buildings, a "Quality of Life" committee is formed that has a Board member and other volunteers who can sit down with both parties to try and mediate it out before it gets out of hand. Sometimes you're dealing with reasonable residents who can work it out, but more often that not it will not solve the problem at hand.

Often, you'll have a situation as you described, with the Shareholder above fully abiding by the 80% rule and that is not enough for the resident below. Now that the Board has done its due diligence, it is really out of the Coop's hands and should be a personal matter between the two parties for them to work it out on their own, and not on the dime of the Cooperative (assuming that the Shareholders above are not going over and above the regular noise limits for the building, i.e. jumping non-stop, tap dancing, etc.) They have kids, and kids do things like jump around and make noise while they're awake, it's par for the course. Certainly, since it is a Board member in this case, they're using their position on the Board to sway the legal representative and the Coop's pocketbook into a personal matter when it should not be.

Noise issues are messy, and when you're living in a multi-family building, there isn't an easy fix for some complaints. My usual response would be to purchase a private home where you can have all of the silence that you want plus the sole cost of keeping the property up.

I agree with Mark and the other responders. Noise is an awful thing to live with, particularly overhead. In our coop, a shareholder complains about noise from the apartment above him, the managing agent inspected the apartment and found it covered 80%, but the rugs didn't have padding underneath. She recommended padding to the upstairs shareholder, and hopefully that will work. Other than that, I think the agent, coop and the shareholder are doing all they can. But, one Board member suggested the upstairs people should have their floor boards fixed to eliminate the creaking. Has anyone heard of requiring that?

I like the idea of mediation, and will suggest it, getting the two sides to sit down together and talk it out -- with Board members? with the co-op agent or attorney?

I surmise from your post that your building is frame, not concrete, yes?

Is there any insulation at all in your building, or is it (like mine) sans insulation of any kind, exterior walls or between floors and ceilings?

Could be worth the co-op's time and money to fully insulate your building; it would save on energy costs (and the cost of doing it now might be green, therefore deductible), and could help cut down on noise.

Just a thought....

Yes, our building is also a frame structure, though I don't kow about insulation between apartments. Probably very little, as I'm told in some apartments you can actually hear the answering machine of the apartment above (yes, they should lower the volume and have some privacy). One person told another that she can hear when he takes a shower. Kind of takes the joy out of a long hot shower, doesn't it, knowing the person beneath could be listening, or even timing it.

Our building was built as a rental and then went co-op. I'm told it went up quickly. My parents' building, on the other hand, was built as a co-op and has stronger construction. People are still bothered by noise, but less so. They don't hear every footstep or boards creaking.

It may sound like a humiliating thing to do, but when we had some noise issues between shareholders a while back, it was resolved in front of all the shareholders attending the annual and amicably. Making it a "public" issue put the onus on both parties to be civil and respect each other's right to quiet. One had to just step lighter and the other take his speakers off the floor. Done. Everything should be so easy!

Mark Levine:

I read your response to Michael C. I am the Shareholder he is speaking of with the Noise issue. I have had this noise issue for years, not just since I am on the Board. Michael C is a biased Board Member and explained the issue not quite correctly. There is an issue between myself and the residents above me. I am being deliberately targeted and harassed by the residents above me for years. This building is very divided, many factions, if you are not in one group or another or not in any you're targeted by certain people. We have people on the Board who have acquaintences and friends who can do whatever they choose and others cannot. DO YOU HAVE A SOLUTION FOR THAT? That is what this building is like. If you choose to answer me you can. Yes, I am going to Court for injunctive relief and breach of habitability, Quiet Enjoyment, that I don't even receive in the middle of the night. The 80% rule should apply to the entire apartment not 80% of a room, not sure but I will check on that. The photo's that I have of the apartment above me shows an enormous amount of exposed wood, also we DO NOT have the appropriate insulation which is a problem, so what do we do in that case? When I read your answer I thought it was fair for me to explain the story. I am NOT a Board Member using my influence, I expressed this as a Shareholder.

Judith F.

You mention that you had an engineer look at the problem, was the engineer an acoustical engineer? If so the report should have been fairly well detailed providing additional information as to the source, wavelength and decibel range of the noise.

Having experienced a similar circumstance I would recommend Cerami & Associates if you did not avail yourself of a acoustical engineer.

While you may have shown what you believe to be due diligence this will throw very little weight in the event your building is visited by a member of NYC’s DEP.

The DEP’s range for acceptable noise level can range from 30 to 70 dB depending on the octave band. Fines for exceeding these noise levels can be very high.

Insulating the area may not be helpful if the source of the noise is from mechanical source (motor, boiler, fan, etc.), in this case vibration dampening equipment may abate the problem.

Best of luck.

Noise problems are ubiquitous and are often difficult to handle. Let me suggest a few things, most of which apply only to co-ops. There's no Warranty of Habitability in a condo, which typically makes noise issues even more problematic.

You need to strike a good balance between doing too much and doing too little. In the case of your resident who hears noises in her walls that are within legally acceptable limits, I wouldn't do anything unless you have a simple and inexpensive solution you'd be willing to provide to anyone. And that's the problem: you *will* have to provide the same solution to any other shareholder who demands it. If you don't, you could be facing a lawsuit. "You did it for her, so you've gotta do it for me, too!"

If you're stuck with an existing policy you don't like, you may be able to draw a line in the sand and say, "From now on, we're not doing that anymore," but you need to be careful. Any exceptions must have very specific reasons behind them. No one is going to believe you're treating shareholders fairly if you keep erasing and re-drawing the line. "We did it for Ms. Jones, but never again! You can't have it, Mr. Smith! Oh, maybe we'll make an exception for Mr. Doe. And Ms. Chang. But that's the last time! Well, okay, Mr. Mackenzie. But you're the last one!"

If the noise falls outside legal limits and is attributable to another shareholder, then naturally you should bill any legal or engineering fees to that shareholder, along with whatever fines are allowable under your Proprietary Lease. If the illegal noise is the coop's responsibility, however, you need to be careful and prompt in fixing it. A classic example is River Terrace Apartments v. Robinson, in which the coop installed new and noisy machines in the laundry room. Robinson complained and the coop tried to reduce the noise and vibrations, to no avail. The board decided they'd done their due diligence, and that the rights of the many who liked the machines trumped the rights of the few.

WRONG, said the judge, awarding Robinson a 50% maintenance abatement. You can't violate one shareholder's Warranty of Habitability just because it benefits other shareholders. And due diligence has nothing to do with it: if the coop has failed to abate the problem, no one cares how hard they tried.

One of my good friends is living through a Robinson situation right now. Four years ago, his coop installed massive new washers that created a perpetual noise problem in his apartment. Making things even worse, the coop had installed the machines in a manner that flagrantly violated the manufacturer's instructions. After considerable back-and-forth -- during which the coop sent over an engineer and established there was a legitimate noise problem -- the coop installed the machines properly and put in some soundproofing. None of this helped significantly, and the board obstinately refused to remove the offending machines. The coop didn't even bother to send over an engineer after the work was done to see if the problem had been abated. This past month, my friend finally filed a lawsuit against his coop after exhausting every possible amicable solution.

In short, don't be cavalier about significant noise problems unless you want your building to become the next Robinson case. On the other hand, don't take wildly aggressive action against relatively trivial noise issues unless you want to get stuck doing a whole lot of work that isn't legally required.

Very enlightening answer, CDT. We have an ongoing problem in our building which the sponsor still owns many units in. One of the very noisy garage doors is under one of the sponsors's units and a rent-stabalized tenant is in it for a very long time. The tenant has complained to management about the offensive noise which goes on all night, with cars coming and going. Certain car owners slam their doors so loud, it sounds like a bomb going off in the tenant's apt. Management has had the garage door repair company over to fix mechanism but it doesn't help and they say there is nothing they can do to attenuate the noise. The offending car owners are SHs. We, on the Board don't know what to do. The tenant is going to file complaint with DEP and ask for a rent rebate from rent-stabilization. Where does the Board stand in terms of responsibility for fixing the noise problem and what if it can't be fixed? Thanks!

Wow, that's a difficult problem, BN. Sounds like you should get your attorney involved, as well as an independent engineer to measure the severity of the noise. You might want to investigate replacing the garage door entirely, perhaps with a different kind of mechanism.

If the noise is as bad as the rent-stabilized tenant claims, then I would suspect that a rent reduction will be awarded. As a consequence, the sponsor will demand a reduction in maintenance for that apartment and will probably get it.

As for the slamming of car doors, your Proprietary Lease or House Rules (or both) probably contain language along the lines of, "The Lessee shall not permit or suffer any unreasonable noises or anything which will interfere with the rights of other lessees or unreasonably annoy them" (a quote from our Proprietary Lease). Unfortunately, your lease probably doesn't give you the authority to levy fines for such violations. Your sole recourse would be a Pullman-style eviction, which is such a Draconian response to door-slamming that it probably wouldn't be supported.

(I need to emphasize that I'm not a lawyer, just a Board President who tries to stay up-to-date on issues affecting co-ops.)

I've had great success with Anthony Giordano at Vertical Systems Analysis.

His e-mail is AAAELEV@aol.com.

They typically charge in a few phases, depending on what type of work you need and what you want them to oversee...can't hurt to email for a proposal, they'll usually get one out same week.

I have used them with a satisfactory level of success also...

~AR

We're in the middle of the same project. Our building is nine stories and we're modernizing a single elevator that currently has a 1915 winding drum and a 1951 control system (automatic, not manual). We're replacing all the mechanics from top to bottom, although we're retaining the wood-paneled cab and we're keeping the machine room in the basement. We put the work out for bids, and the majority were right around $175,000. This does not include engineering and filing fees, and we were told that a cab replacement would have added another $10,000 or so.

For an elevator engineer, I would highly recommend Emilio Diez of VDA at 212-868-9090. His analysis and specifications were very detailed and precise, and he has provided us with excellent advice.

$250,000-$350,000.
I'm asuming that you're not changing the cabs themselves.

Just wanted to expand on Gerry's quote of $250,000 to $350,000 for two elevators, which sounds about right --

There isn't one single form of "modernization." In particular, if you keep the old winding drum instead of upgrading to a traction machine, you'll save about $45,000 per elevator. This isn't generally advised, although sometimes you have no choice if the machine room is very small, or if upgrading would require a significant loss of space in the cab. Get the full details and recommendations from your engineer.

Also, it's worth noting that elevator companies are eager for work right now and the bids we received for our own elevator were quite aggressive. The multiple bids around $175,000 (including winding drum replacement) were considerably lower than we would have expected 18 months earlier.

If you live in a coop that gets the J51 and your sponsor has been de-regulating his apt. as they become available it seems that this has been illegal and all of them must be re-regulated and the rents reduced. Can anyone confirm this?

Who is affected by the decision?
The decision serves as a reminder to tenants to check to see whether their buildings receive J-51 benefits, even if the case did not specifically deal with the exact category of building they live in. Every apartment in buildings that now receive J-51 benefits, except co-ops and condos, must be governed by some form of rent regulation. )To find out whether a building received or receives J-51 benefits, go to www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_tax_reduc_j_51.shtml. Searching will require that you know the block and lot number for your building, which you can get at http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/Coverpage.dll/index.)


Any tenant that moved into a building as a supposedly deregulated tenant might instead be rent-stabilized, if either (a) the building is now getting J-51 benefits, or (b) the building used to get J-51 benefits during the tenancy of the current tenant, and the tenant did not get notice, in the first lease and in every renewal, saying that the apartment can be deregulated when the benefits expire.
In addition, a stabilized tenant might be exempt from high-income deregulation under similar circumstances.

Once a tenant is rent-stabilized because he or she is in one of these categories, the apartment remains stabilized even if the building goes condo or co-op. If the building went co-op or condo before the tenant takes occupancy, though, the tenant cannot be rent-stabilized.
Tenants who would be in these categories but who have left their supposedly deregulated apartments are affected too: If they left less than four years ago, they can sue for overcharges. It is doubtful, however, that they could ever regain possession.

Only tenants who were in occupancy at the time when J-51 benefits were received can benefit. If the building got benefits but they expired before the current tenant took occupancy, it is doubtful that the current tenant can benefit (at least not without a lot of legal wrangling).