I looked into this in Forest Hills after just taking over a cooperative building and was able to get a $35,000 rebate for overcharging. This is a fluke though, as 20 other properties that I checked were correct. The expeditor that I used is Avi Naumberg and you can reach him at AviNaumberg@waterbills.com

I've had consistent success and professional guidance from Avi Naumberg, Esq. @ New York Water Mgt.Real Estate Management Consultants 405 Central Avenue, 2nd Floor, Cedarhurst, New York 11516
Phone: (516) 569-1320 or Toll Free: (888) 4-CUT-BILL
Fax: (516) 569-1344 Web: www.waterbills.com,
Email: avinaumberg@waterbills.com

I am wondering what this company (NY Water Mgmt..) charges for their service? Are they paid only if they are successful? If so, what's the percentage they receive?

At the Site map here

http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_info/site_map#water

I found the article "Fighting Back Against High Water Bills"

http://habitatmag.com/index.php/habitat/publication_content/2008_january/featured_articles_from_our_print_magazine/high_water_bills__1

I would call the Better Business Bureau and the State Attorney Generals office to see if they have any complaints lodged against them.

Wentworth, Jal, Coopersquare



Are now one company, as for JAL the former



Owner John is a racist right wing nut,



Jerry is an ex cop, with an attitude



Of a cop not a manager he never went to college,



he just finish his high school



Education.

I have many buildings with long term self amortization mortgages that I prefer NOT to refinance...
Ask... if the mtge is in place since 87... are the rates good? are they close to being debt free? is there an exorbitant prepayment penalty? is it more cost effective to keep the loan? ...there are many good reasons for this... Any sponsor would want a lower mortgage just as you the shareholder would; and most management companies earn 1/2-1% on the refinance so it would behoove them to refinance the overlying mortgage also..... (We recently paid off a 1986 mortgage in full and the smaller Coop has no mortgage or other debt now and is in a great financial position no matter how the economy turns!)

That being said:
As the first poster put it, the BBB and the AG are best... Also, ask around. As you see below, some people are more than happy to badmouth a company and give out information that are not on record.... Just be careful that you are listening to proven fact and not just the opinion of someone who was disgruntled with them.

Best
~AR

I believe so, down the road when you have to go to Court, you should have a paper trail!

We just ended a court case, I wont go into the details, BUT,,, the fact that for years there was no mention of the problem/situation -- in the Board min, was a very BIG issue with the judge. The owner had been on the Board all those years, and with a complient board, kept his situation out of the min.
We learned that Board min are not only a legal record, but can also help in traceing leaks/strutcual problems and problem owners/tenets. As oppose to putting in the name of the owner/tenet you can put in the apartment number.
I strongly advise all Boards to start looking at the min, as an important record for future boards. VP

When you say "the owner," do you mean the sponsor or just a shareholder?

The owner is a Shareholder. However, it would make no diffrence. The Board min are a valuable/legal record of everything that goes on in the building.

you must be vERY careful to be very accurate and have good faith when evicting someone for non-financial reasons. do not be biased, in accurate, have unfounded accusations or discriminate or you place the coop at risk.

Corporate minutes are valuable to any case. They can also hurt the Board if not written properly, so many secretaries are vague as not to cause undue liability, some do not include items as not to scare buyers, and for many other reasons... But when you get before a judge, you better have everything in order. Yes, make mention of it in the minutes; no, do not add every detail.

In short: Have a separate log and/or record with all documents very well kept, keep your minutes short, to the point, descriptive of the matter at that pint in time, but not so much of the discussions themselves or the participants (unless you make third party reference to an attorney opinion, etc)

i.e. The board was advised by Larry Lawyer to commence a holdover proceeding against a shareholder for failure to clean their apartment and creating a fire hazard for the building.
A vote was taken and the Board agrees with the opinion of Council.

(This was an actual case we had in one Coop I manage - we won and the Coop recovered the apartment!)

Best
~AR

I thought, in order to be price fixing, there must be cahoot. Who's the other party? Remember, the board has the right of first refusal. Buy it and resale it.

The main reason for a board to reject a low price offer on a coop unit happens to be value of the other units. When units are financed through a bank, there is a bank lender's questionnaire to fill to arrive to the right value of the unit (bank appraisal). If units have sold at a low price in a coop, banks will not be willng to lend money for a unit at a much higher value. Consequently, the price of the other units suffer. In a down or stagnant market, a low price may be rejected by some co-op boards in fear that the units will be devalued.

In a coop there is no right of first refusal. The Board just refuses for a reason or no reason at all. A low price is a common excuse in some co-ops.

AdC

You live in a co-op. Your apartment is in the same line as one for sale. You're about to put yours on the market, and suddenly the other guy drops his price substantially because he's desperate for an offer (maybe he used the wrong real estate agent who doesn't know the neighborhood and wasted 6 months of listing. Maybe the shareholder is selling it himself. Maybe he's in dire financial need and in danger of foreclosure). And suddenly, YOUR apartment is worth a lot less than it should be, because "the comps" reflect lowered pricing on his apartment. (This actually happened in our co-op; the second owner was denied more than $50K of sale price the very day before he was going to put his apartment on the market.)

Lowball prices can ruin a co-op's value really quickly. A board that's cognizant of its fiduciary responsibilities may feel it has no choice but to reject an offer it feels is too low. And yes, before allowing an offer that's too low to go through, I think the board might consider purchasing and holding on to it until the market's better if the co-op can afford it.

I agree with RLM. We had to do this in our coop and later found out the 'agent' wanted the unit for his own profit.

I don't think fiduciary responsiblity stretches to the point in which you will be protecting the market price of certain apartments when they are listed. There are many reasons why an apartment is listed and sold for less price:

1. You mentioned financial hardship of a particular individual.
2. The need to sell immediately to relocate rather than subletting or leaving an empty apartment.
3. You bought low years ago and have flexibility in the price you accept.
4. A handyman's apartment (i.e., unrenovated and in need or major work)on the same line v. a move-in, totally renovated apartment which commands greater price.

However, the main reason why Boards worry is the drop in appraisal value of apartments and the ability to obtain financing on units with higher prices.

Unfortunately, Boards do not worry nor have any power in forcing residents to improve their units and to keep them at a certain minimum statndard. This may be the cause of disparity in prices. The conditions of a unit are major considerations when selling a unit. I have seen units with the same layout and on the same line that require a minimum of $25K in basic updates and repairs. These units can only be sold at a low price so there is an incentive to renovate. As you may know, you cannot request a share loan above and beyond the asking price to conduct renovations. Consequently, unless you have the cash for renovations or you refinance the unit at a later time or request a personal loan at a higher interest, the unit may not be renovated.

I would say, Boards should be extremely happy when residents renovate and take pride in their units. Therefore, if the person buying the unit has the intention to renovate a neglected unit, tne purchaser will demand the market price at the time to sell. In the case of the shareholder who could not sell at a higher price, extra time will be necessary to find the ideal buyer or reduce the price if necessary if the wait becomes too long.

AdC

"...However, the main reason why Boards worry is the drop in appraisal value of apartments and the ability to obtain financing on units with higher prices...."

If I may add... that most of the time, it is a self serving concern as they feel the value of their own unit is being compromised, but as AdC pointed out, and I will plainly state, they may be too short sighted or narrow minded to make or draw an ingenuous assessment of the current situation and wind up doing more harm than good in the long run… Did that make sense!?

~AR

I agree with AdC, Right of First Refusal is in a Condo not in a Co-op.

If you have access to the Habitat article archive, read this:
http://www.habitatmag.com/archive/p_view_article.php?article_id=3803

An excerpt:

[A board member] asked, "Legally, can boards even set minimums?" In Manhattan and the Bronx, the courts have said, "Yes, you can." In Westchester, Queens, and Staten Island, it’s been, "No, you can’t." The logic in each case was contradictory. ... No higher court has ever reviewed the conflicting rulings.

The buiilding Super/Resident Manager should seal the smokers apt as well as the adjacent apts to prevent the smoke for entering the non-smokers apt. Also the smoker has to properly vent his/her apt.

Ellen, We too have an old building, and a number of apartments have been combined, or taken over a room from another apartment. But, this was taken into consideration when the mergers were applied for, and shares reallocated.
This is not leagal -- and the Building lawyer, as well as Board members should have taken care of each individual apartment reconfiguration. I would strongly advise the Board to have your lawyer look into it. If there is a Board member benifiting from this, since they now know the rule -- they should immediatly move to have this resolved.
If the rest of the Coop gets wind of this, there could be serious problems.

Thanks for your message HG. We are way past that point. Lawyers have looked into this numerous times and nothing can be done to reallocate shares. That is why we have thought about evening the playing field with some other sort of charges. It's not the mergers that created the problem it was the original unit owners that converted the bldg and gave more shares to the storage areas and maids rooms all of which are individual units today.

To change the distribution, you may need every shareholder to agree to a redistribution. Unfortunately, when it comes to redistribution of wealth, there are VERY FEW if any who may gladly embrace the idea. In this case, those who are benefited by the current distribution of shares will hold on t on to the status quo and will not vote in favor of such a distribution. Therefore, due diligence is critical when buying units and making sure that the apartment that is of interest is not unusually endowed with an unfair distribution of shares.

Good luck!

AdC

I know, i know. We would not even attempt to reallocate exactly because of what you describe. Instead I believe we can even out the inequality by charging apts with lower amount of shares per sq ft with other charges that are now split equally. Have you heard of anyone doing that?

I believe you will have a major litigation if you were to do something like that! You cannot charge phantom charges just because you wish to become Don Quixote.

AdC

Unless you can demonstrate that an apartment is consuming a larger share of a specific resource -- by submetering, for example -- then all charges must be on a per-share basis. Any attempt to reapportion charges based on subjective criteria is extremely questionable and could land you in serious legal trouble.

The resident manager prepared a cost per share vs. a cost per sq ft analysis and it varied from $1.30 per sq ft to $3.05 per sq foot of maintenance. There is no submetering in place because not all of the apt's infrastructures have been properly upgraded. As a result, any building wide charges/assessments which are based on a per share basis are widely disproportionate and constantly creates a division in agreement about any projects, etc.

Has it always made noise or did it just start?

Guests have heard it , but I haven't. Hard of hearing. But now I hear it.

You should have the superintendent ask the boiler company to check the top of the chimney, sometimes birds get in there and start building nests which could partially block the space, resulting in a whistling sound when the air is trying to escape the flue. That's why they have cages on top of the chimney's.

That is correct, Penmark is now a part of Brown Harris Stevens.

Once you replace entrance doors, you must have them open towards the outside. Most stores have them like that, this is done in case their is an emergency everyone would rush to the exit/entrance doors and have to pull open the door causing the people to stop and pull open the door, causing the people to slam into each other. They changed this rule a couple of years ago.

Thanks. That's disappointing. Even though the landing the door's opening out on to is only the size of the width of the door? Which forces people with carts and things to have to back away until the door clears.

It may be inconvenient but an occasional inconvenience to someone with a cart is nothing compared to what would happen if residents were trapped while trying to get out.

I don't believe you are allowed to use one in a apartment. But check the link to the fire department below.

www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/bldgs_code/rule_28-02.pdf

they do not need a vent - if they are the new ones. nope. no city codes apply. they are like candles.