Although I am not lawyer (and I suggest that the Board discussed this with theirs), I have always been told that treating everyone the same is the best policy. I would suggest not grandfathering. I would also suggest that the President recuse himself/herself from the decision.

Treating all shareholders equally is not only the best policy ethically, it's the required policy legally. That is, under New York State corporate law you must treat all shareholders the same.

Of course, you can always make exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

But if I were on your board, I would suggest that the long-time sub-lettors be required to follow the same rule as everyone else. Once the rule is enacted, why not give them the same amount of time as everyone else? So even after having sublet for, say, a decade, the new people will have three more years (or whatever you decide is the max) once the policy goes into place.

Not only does it treat everyone fairly, it keeps you out of legal jeopardy, too.

Rigidity rather than flexibility is, in fact, not good governing. As a lawyer explained here:

http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_content/2008_october/featured_articles_from_our_print_magazine/authoritarian_boards_public_rancor/authoritarian_boards_public_rancor_p_2

"A board can decide to not enforce a rule," notes attorney Joseph G. Colbert, a partner at Kagan Lubic Lepper Lewis Gold & Colbert, and an adjunct professor at St. John's University School of Law. "If it's just something the board passed and not a bylaw amendment, then the board, like any political body, can interpret when these rules can be enforced, subject of the approval or disapproval of the residents."

Grandfathering was the wise solution in this case, in which a board until then had wasted enormous time, energy and money and found itself harshly spotlight on TV news.

It probably wouldn't hurt to read one of the articles at http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_info/site_map#subletting

DavidG - "board member" is right. Per state Business Corporation Law (the "BCL"), all SHs must be treated "fairly and equally." Other than occasional exceptions for good reason, what applies to one applies to all.

Your coop attorney should first check your by-laws to see what they say on subletting. I have a few questions for you.

1) You said 2 SHs asked to sublet with the same rights/duration/terms as the original three. What makes the three who sublet for 10+ years "original" and why do their rights etc. differ from other SHs who sublet?

2) Unless a new sublet policy/grandfathering was suggested to all SHs (e.g., in a memo or at the annual meeting), why are SHs asking for special terms or involved in this? What a board discusses among themselves including new rules it may enact shouldn't be open to opinion or question by everyone.

3) You said your board pres is related to a grandfathered renter. Doesn't that mean you already have "grandfathering" in place - and if so, how did that come about???

4) 3 units in your 57-unit bldg have been sublet for over 10 years. How many total sublets do you have in your bldg?

In my opinion, your board should carefully review its sublet policy, make sure you have a comprehensive sublet application package, and as required by law treat all SHs fairly and equally in enforcing your sublet policy.

If you want to enact a new policy allowing subletting for 3 of every 5 years and add a fee, fine, but make sure your by-laws permit this. If they do and you don't have a fee, you should. I don't know of any coops that don't charge a sublet fee and they are all substantial, not just a token fee like $50 or $100. Our coop (and others I know) have a fee for all new AND renewal sublets equal to 2 months maintenance. Especially in smaller bldgs with few ways of generating funds, a sublet fee can be a good source of revenue.

In my reply to DavidG with my 4 questions on subletting, I neglected to enter my name. I'm BP, not Anonymous. I forgot to fill in the blanks at the top of my posting. Sorry!

I don't mean to be impolite or snarky, but since your post appears -- and I may be misreading -- to give legal advice that directly contradicts a widely credentialed attorney, I'm not sure that's a proper thing to do. Laypersons don't generally have an accurate reading of the nuances and subtleties of law, and probably should not be dispensing legal opinion.

JB - Your post stated the following:
"A board can decide to not enforce a rule," notes attorney Joseph G. Colbert, a partner at Kagan Lubic Lepper Lewis Gold & Colbert, and an adjunct professor at St. John's University School of Law. "If it's just something the board passed and not a bylaw amendment, then the board, like any political body, can interpret when these rules can be enforced, subject of the approval or disapproval of the residents."

I'm not sure what you mean by saying I directly contradicted the above attorney and I, a lay person, shouldn't dispense legal opinion. I suggested to DavidG that his coop see what its by-laws say on subletting before enacting any new policy. I also said business corporation law requires that all SHs be treated the same which is widely known. I didn't contradict the above attorney who said a board can decide when a rule it passed should/shouldn't be enforced. My comments weren't even on that point. Sorry, JB, but I think you did misinterpret my posting.

If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Here's what I read on your posting:

>>it's the required policy legally. That is, under New York State corporate law you must treat all shareholders the same.>Of course, you can always make exceptions on a case-by-case basis.<<

When a layman uses the term "legally" and references "New York State corporate law," my instinct is to ask for a cite. One of the most dangerous things I find in any discussion is the notion that one's lay interpretation of the law is a claim "which is widely known." In my long experience, things we believe are widely known often are not true.

There also seems to be a contradiction, where you say all shareholders must be treated equally, except when you make exceptions. Exceptions, ipso facto, are unequal treatment. {This is different from treating shareholder fairly, which I'm sure we can all agree is the proper thing to do.) So I'm not sure what you're saying.

JB - My posting name is "BP". On my last post, I forgot to put it at the top and my post was sent as "Anonymous." I sent another post noting that. That aside, you're referring to lines about >>must treat all shareholders the same>of course you can always make exceptions on a case by case basis>Thus, board members are fiduciaries to the shareholders and unit owners who have elected them to their position of power. Accordingly, individual co-op and condo board members are strictly prohibited from self dealing to the detriment of their association and its constituent shareholders or unit owners. They are also required by law to treat their shareholders or unit owners with meticulous fairness and equality.<<

See: http/www.cooperator.com/Is-Your-Board-Carrying-Out-Its-Fiduciary-Duty/Page 1.html

I'm sure many other posters here can agree that treating all shareholders the same is a widely known fact and is true.

As for making exceptions, what I said wasn't to imply unfair or unequal treatment - only making an occasional exception to a coop rule. For example, if a coop allows apt work from 8am to 4pm, but a resident asks if his men can work until 5pm which will enable them to finish the work and not have to return another day. That's simply an accommodation if a board deems it acceptable. I doubt there are any coops that won't make exceptions to rules occasionally if they don't disturb the bldg or other residents or aren't unreasonable.

I would like to thank everyone for their response and feedback. As a new member to this board, we will be updating our polices and look for common practice to help at least drive a direction that is consistent, and fair to our shareholders, that allows flexibility but is firm and sets a goal of a financially and structurally sound building.
After reading the comments, previous discussions and articles, as well as previous experience, we will work with our attorney to craft a policy that will be consistent with our bylaws, prop lease, and NY law.
One goal is to ensure each shareholder has a binder with the policies for their reference - to reduce noise around operating procedure, increase transparency, and allow our co-op to become something special. I know we can&#146;t please everyone, but we will remain focused to do the best we can for our shareholders.

Thanks again for your comments.

To quoe the Ny Observer:

"Should the decision indeed be retroactive, as the tenants have requested, the existing tenants currently paying market rates would see their rents dramatically lowered. It would be as if they never had been de-stabilized, and tenants could even receive back-rent for the difference between the market and regulated rents.

The decision applies to other owners who deregulated apartments while in the J-51 program as well.

CAN THIS HELP REDUCE SPONSOR PRESENCE? DOES ANYONE KNOW?

It may be that the J-51 fits in to this. But a knowledgible person will have to answer.

In otherwords, if the sponsor apts have not been getting the annual abatement, then this may not effect those units that have been deregulated.

In many co-ops deliveries do not require a deposit as the shareholder or resident is living in the unit and you may always assess damages against the maintenance. However, there should be procedures to ensure that the delivery is announced ahead of time to inspect and protect the property from damages caused by a delivery.

In the event of an independent person with a van, the resident is wise to ensure that the person has appropriate insurance coverage in the event of damage to the building. This would avoid unnecessary grinding of teeth and other accompanying expressions.

AdC

I worked in a cooperative building years ago where the Board/Management Company had each shareholder issue a check for $500.00 and that was kept on file and you didn't have to keep writing a check every time you had a delivery, you only had to let the Resident Manager know when the delivery was coming. Maybe something like that can be arranged?

That seems like a very smart idea - can you tell me if it was a regular check or certified form- in otherwords, it was not actually a check that was in a withdrawn/ cash form , not collecting=interest.?

I believe it was deposited into a special account, interest earning? I am not sure it was ten or so years ago.

Typically all deliveries should be scheduled with the super and/or management.
This provides the employee the chance to protect the elevator and make provision for the delivery if need be.
In addition, the delivery company should provide an insurance certificate to management.
If damage occurs, then the negligent party will be held responsible, the maintenance assessed for damages and/or the delivery company&#146;s insurance.
The exact protocol of each building would be specific to the needs and character of the building, but it should always be written in the house rules or somewhere that it can be accessed and read by all residents.

Best
~AR

I agree, getting insurance from every delivery company would be a great headache for the Superintendent/Management Company. If you have homeowners insurance it should be filed with the building.

Maybe your building should join the 32B-J Union? At least check into it.

we have a 40 unit coop with one f/t super. we're paying $1100 a month towards, union fees, health care, pension fund. the union contract expires in 2011, some board members don't want to renew the contact. they're considering obtaining a less generous health plan

Oxford has a plan called Metro and another called libery metro that I hold for some of my supers in the same position (buildings with 1 employee).
For the single plan it is 388. per month/4,676 per yearl.
copays are higher, but he still has full coverage including prescriptions... it works great for me.
I alsogive the employee the option of buying the difference of a better plan if he wishes.

Best
~AR

I just applied for a building with one full time employee today. Healthy NY (http://www.ins.state.ny.us/website2/hny/english/hny.htm), but I believe they have to make less than $40,000. Rates were very good if you take a look.

I do believe that in order for the Room-mate Law to work the tenant must live in the apartment at the same time as the room-mate. As for relatives, how do you really know if they are related, do you ask for proof (is it legal too)?

Check your bylaws, ours list the relatives who are elegable to stay. Nieces and Nephews are not listed, therefore in our coop they would have to pay a sublet fee.

AliceT

bandit61 - Our Prop Lease and most others states that the apartment can be occupied by a SH and a SH's spouse, siblings, children, grandchildren, parents, grandchildren and domestic employees.

Aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, etc. are not part of a SH's immediate family and not considered authorized occupants. Check your Prop Lease. If it states the same as ours and your SH's niece lives in her apartment without board approval, she'd be considered a sublet. Check this with your coop attorney too. You should be able to charge a sublet fee and require any other terms you have for sublets (application package, interview).

My coop has a $750 fine for any "invalid occupancy" - i.e., for anyone not authorized and approved to live in an apartment, for a tenant whose sublet term expired but hasn't moved out and the SH does nothing in good faith to get the tenant out, etc. We've had to charge this fine a few times and the SHs all paid it and had the occupant move out. If they didn't pay it, we'd let it sit on their account as a lien. If they didn't make the occupant leave we'd have to take further legal steps but that hasn't been necessary.

The key word is "and" not "or" so with the shareholder. IF the shareholder isn't living there it is a sublease

The Roommate Law applies only when the Lessee is concurrently occupying the apartment. If the shareholder has moved out, the Roommate Law doesn't apply.

The rest is a matter of checking the "Use of Premises" paragraph in your Proprietary Lease (it's Paragraph 14 in the lease used by many NYC co-ops). If the list of permitted residents says "the Lessee AND ..." then the courts have ruled that the shareholder must be occupying the apartment along with the other person.

On the other hand, if your lease says the permitted occupants are (for example) "the Lessee, children, spouse, ..." -- with no AND after Lessee -- then anyone in the list is allowed to live in the apartment, with or without the shareholder.

"and" is ambiguous and courts has upheld it as meaning "or."

Marvin G wrote:
>"and" is ambiguous and courts has upheld it as meaning "or."

That's not the current status, unless there's a very recent decision of which I'm unaware. There was one early anomalous case that ruled as you describe (Barbizon Owners Corp. v. Chudick, 1994), but it has now been settled law for many years that "Lessee AND" requires simultaneous occupancy by the shareholder.

Family members may also be considered subleasing the unit if the shareholder is not in residence. Example: parents and children living without the shareholder are considered tenants. It is up to the board to consider if they wish to enforce the sublet fee on family members living the apartment. In cases where the shareholder is keeping the apartment for parents or a child, it is understood that the shareholder is not charging fair market rent and, in reaching to a decision, this must be considered too.

Does he live in the building? That's $250 per week without an apartment. Maybe he only has time to do the hallways once per week, there has to be a reason why he can't do it twice per as requested.

Uh, I would not think part time super's live in the building. If so, then he should be paying rent. I only know of full time super's to be living rent free. Anyway, $1,000 should be appropriate.

Part time supers do live in some buildings and they work a regular job, in addition to getting a free apartment they receive a small salary.

We have one live-super and two porters for our 111 unit three building complex. We decided to amend our union contract by paying $.50 extra per hour to get extra cleaning, minor spot painting and other additional items. I have found that if you want extra services (from what the expectations are), paying a little extra for them builds goodwill between staff and management/Boards.

Thank you all for your response.
The super does not live in our building.
He takes care of another where he has been given an apartment.
He was given instruction on job duties & agreed to carry them out. That is not happening, we have to keep asking or pointing out what needs attending.
How much an hour is the going rate?

Hi,

Our Union rates (Ft George area of Manhattan) are $17.975/hr for the live in Super and $16.98 for a porter.

Thank you, any idea what it is for a live out super?

Just ran across this Habitat piece about managing part-time supers:

http://habitatmag.com/earlier_issues/2005_december/web_exclusive_adaptations/managing_part_time_supers

1000.00 is definitely adequate to do the hallways twice a week. The supers duty is to make sure that everything is done properly even if it means washing the floor three times a week.

My sentiments exactly!
Thank you for our help

I have shared supers that earn less than that and clean up to 4 buildings 2+ times a week.
Create a job description & agreement for him to sign and adhere to and inform him that it is not negotiable. Do not be afraid to replace him, there are thousands of people willing to fill the shoes.

You can email me if you would like a simple sample agreement that i made & use.

Best
~AR

Thank you AR, I would like a copy of that letter.
e-mail: ahiggins6@nyc.rr.com

just make sure thePDF didnt get sent to spam

~AR

Hi AR,
We have a pt super who is paid $450 a month for 12 apts. He lives far away and is not handy in terms of being hired by tenants to make small repairs they would pay for. Sometimes we need someone to let vendors in for repairs and he can't be depended upon to do that. We get many sanitation tickets for the curbs not being swept of debris in the mornings. We've identified interested super replace,ent candidates who are live in supers on the block, and willing and able to do more than the current one does for the same money. Now some board members are feeling badly firing him "until he finds another job." Is this reasonable? And, is paying $450 a month for someone to bag garbage three times a week, clean the halls of a brownstone once a week, and nothing else reasonable? Thanks for your advice.

The price you are paying is certainly fair for the tasks required.

As you have discovered, there are many qualified people out there willing and able to take it on...

(I am assuming this is not his primary source of income)

Do they realize that they are paying the citations, added costs because of inattention to the boiler on a daily basis and an all around derogation of services? What if there is an accident and lawsuit because the sidewalk was not cleaned in a timely manner?
This amounts to much more than just $450 per month in aggregate.

I would feel bad also since it is obviously not an adversarial layoff, but you have to think of your bottom line and make that priority. Possibly once you have someone lined up, give him a parting gift to ease the pain...

Hopefully after about a month, he will have been forgotten when they are singing praises of the new hire...

Just to summarize.. feeling bad is a good and humane emotion, but as a Board member,make decisions in a fiduciary manner...

Happy New Year

~AR

Thanks, AR. I'll pass on your insights to my board. Just curious: what daily duties does a super normally have with regard to the boiler? I'd like to add that to the list of duties we will need to draw up.

Standard debt consists of:
#1 housing expenses
#2 recurring debt

#1 includes mortgage payment, LOC payment, mortgage or hazard insurance, property taxes (if paid separately) and coop, condo or homeowner monthly fees (maintenance charges, running assessments).

#2 includes student loans, car loans, child support, alimony, credit card payments and any other running obligations that won't be paid off in a relatively short period of time (typically 6 to 12 months).

Also, boards sometimes forget to consider if a buyer's income can meet the other expenses we all have: phones, cable TV, utilities, Internet, commuting to work, laundry/dry cleaning, food, OOP medical/dental, even beauty salon/barber, gifts, leisure (dining out, movies), vacations, pet costs (food, medical), clothing. Also consider if the buyer has furniture, etc. that he's bringing from his current home or if he has to buy them (if he comes from his parents' home, a college dorm or was a roommate with someone who had an apt and owned all the furniture).

You can't pinpoint all the expenses someone has, but things add up. Ever take $100 out of an ATM, then wonder three days later why you only have $18 left? Time flies, and so does money!

Unless it is made out of steel, don't bother the rats would eat right thru it. I would contact the exterminator that your building is using and inquire about some kind of safe traps or other gadgets they are available. Also contact your City Council member and inform him/her of the rats.

Also call your community board's district manager and report the presence of rats.

Because of your location, it's one of those problems where the rats will always exist and you will never catch them all if you attempt to trap them (unless there is a major neighborhoor exterminatino or miricle which I do not forsee)

So, you have two options. Kill or trap every one that comes near the building in effort to cut down on the traffic and appearance of rodents or deter them as much as possible and give them little to no reason to come to you in the first place.
Rodent proof the alleys/courtyard/gartbage area, etc...
Plexiglass works well aslo.
Solar Powered Sonic Rodent Deterrents
JAD Rodent repellent trash bags
Rat-A-Way Repellent

We had a similar issue late last year. We were charging a punitive late fee (which worked - we even had early payers). However, it was pointed out that our Lease only called for "Late Interest". As a result, we changed to conform to the lease language until such time as we can amend the Lease. Specifically, we changed all future charges to late interest and adjusted the unpaid late fees to later interest. We did not address paid late fees and no one has raised it.

I suggest that you first point this out to the Board and ask them to change it. If not, then talk to a lawyer.

Dont pay late!

Bingy - that was not the question. sometimes even the best intended are a few days late.

The Proprietary Lease must be amended to include a late fee clause with the amount that would be charge, i.e., a percent amount or a fixed amout such as $50.

However, your co-op needs the money to pay bills and provide you with basic services as well as pay the salary of those who take care of the buildingd. If the rent is due on the 1st of each month and you have 10 days grace period to pay your rent, I would suggest to do your best effort to pay on time. If for some reason you are experiencing a problem, approach the Board with a letter explaining the issues you may have so that a greater period of time is considered in your case. If this is the first time you are late, then request a waiver. It usually works!

The Proprietary Lease must be amended to include a late fee clause with the amount that would be charged, i.e., a percent amount or a fixed amout such as $50.

However, your co-op needs the money to pay bills and provide you with basic services as well as pay the salary of those who take care of the buildingd. If the rent is due on the 1st of each month and you have 10 days grace period to pay your rent, I would suggest to do your best effort to pay on time. If for some reason you are experiencing a problem, approach the Board with a letter explaining the issues you may have so that a greater period of time is considered in your case. If this is the first time you are late, then request a waiver. It usually works!