I posted this yesterday, but it never appeared. (?)
Two board members want to see all proxies for our annual meeting. They say they have a right to everything related to coop biz. Mgmt says they can only see proxies they're named on but they want to know who's named on all proxies and what shs submit them. They also wanted to know not just final tallies for each candidate but also who votes for whom but mgmt flatly said that's confidential. They gave up on that but still want to see all proxies. Mgmt won't give them that info but they say they'll take the proxies on meeting night if they can't see them beforehand. They won't listen to anything I say.
What is proper/legal regarding who can see proxies and how can we enforce it? Our annual meeting is next week ~
I know this has been touched on before but I think it could be given a more in-depth discussion. we live in a coop with about 30% sponsor owned. we used to have one managing agent but the coop caught the sponsor's agent doing some naughty things and terminated. the coop then got a new agent but the spnsor kept the orgiginal agency. I just noticed the below statement the other day. it seems illegal to have 2 manang agents. (a similar quote appears in our offering plan) - ok so some could argue it is somehow cheaper to have 2 mng agents, (for the coop), but is that true? seems like it is bette rto have one agent to create better , more direct communication.
The statue is very clear,'' said Arthur I. Weinstein, a lawyer specializing in cooperative matters who is vice president of the Council of New York Cooperatives, citing Section 352eeee(3) of the state's General Business Law. ''It says that all dwelling units in cooperatives occupied by nonpurchasing tenants shall be managed by the same managing agent that manages all other dwellings in the building. The law applies to both units owned by the sponsor and those by individuals.''
I have a building on second avenue where they are building the subway (UES). I have recieved solicitations from an engineering company to survey the building for the MTA.
I believe it prudent to hire a company to represent me and my interest (the buildings), and think we would be negligent if we did not. A company that heas been reccomended to me is REAP Consulting, LLC who performs complete surveys of the existing contitions of the building, monitors, even will testify/arbitrate on our behalf if needed. They do alot more than just the engineering portion of a survey...
Question: My question is, has anyone ever had experience with them? Is this the best route for me?
we have surplus basement space (locked up for years) in our coop, that would make a great common room of some variation. the problem is, the sponsor (supposedly) owns the space. attempts have been made to negotiate usage for a playroom to no avial. now rumor has it the apt. above it , wants to buy or rent it. HOWEVER, there have never been shares issued for htis space nor maintainence paid. Considering this, how woule the sponsor suddently gain the rights to rent it or sell it for private use - ?
we would much prefer it being retained for common usage.
The C of O issued by the building Dept. States that our bldg has so many apartment etc and two Doctor'S Offices.
My question is can we rent these offices to other then Doctors? If not how can we get this changed.
The way it is now we seemed to be very limited to who we can rent to.
in a big pre-war coop.
1) if the superintendent installs ac's as a "private" job (he is paid in cash by residents) - who is liable if an ac unit falls to the street and does damage?
2) does the 10" bracket law apply to window ac units installed on non-street facing windows (ie rear courtyards?)
This determination does not directly relate to neighboring buildings but it does relate to the fact that coops must be very careful regarding conditions that make noise (etc) that may violate warrent of habitability/ quiet right to enjoyment:
March 2007: Excessive Noise from Ventilation System Violated Cooperative's Warranty of Habitability
Any lease of residential real property, including a cooperative proprietary lease, is deemed to contain a warranty of habitability. This warranty, codified in Real Property Law § 235-b, provides that the landlord or lessor is deemed to have warranted that the premises are fit for human habitation and the uses reasonably intended by the parties and that the occupants of such premises shall not be subjected to any conditions which would be dangerous or hazardous to their life, health, or safety.
In Misra v. Yesid, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1371, 2007 WL 474018 (1st Dep't Feb. 15, 2007), the Appellate Division upheld a trial court decision holding that a Cooperative had breached the warranty of habitability based upon excessive noise from the Cooperative's ventilation system, which was located directly above the plaintiff's unit. The plaintiff claimed that her apartment was uninhabitable for more than two years because the ventilation system was so loud that she was unable to live in peace and quiet. Plaintiff contended that despite being on notice of the problem, the Cooperative failed to take any effective remedial action. In support of her claim, plaintiff produced reports from the Cooperative's own engineer, indicating that the level of noise and vibrations exceeded those permitted by the New York City Administrative Code. The Court accepted plaintiff's contentions and rejected the Cooperative's argument that the plaintiff had not suffered any damages because she had been traveling and was away from the apartment for some or all of the time period in question. The court ordered a hearing to determine the amount of plaintiff's damages, which could include, but were not limited to, the amounts she paid in maintenance charges during the period in which the apartment was uninhabitable. However, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claim for breach of the warranty of habitability insofar as it was asserted against the Cooperative's management company, because only the landlord or lessor owes obligations under the warranty of habitability.
The Appellate Division also affirmed the trial court's ruling that plaintiff's could pursue a claim of fraud against the person who sold her the unit and the seller's real estate broker. There were issues of fact as to whether the broker had actively concealed the noise problem by reducing the fan speed of the ventilation system when plaintiff came to visit the apartment before acquiring it.
Has anybody ever had this brand of windows, Gamco, installed in their co-ops as replacements? Are they good? We have gotten several quotes from vendors to replace some windows in building and the range was from 3-4K for each unit (two windows per unit). Our managing agent sent Action Glass to bid as well and they came in at $898 per unit. Quite a difference so we'd appreciate any info or feedback from BT members who may have used them or gotten Gamco windows.
Thanks as always,
We'd like to use them as our representative of choice and are interested in your experiences (good, bad, or neutral).
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.