I'm no expert -- nor a lawyer -- but I think that the state attorney general's office should be notified. The reason: co-ops are corporations, governed by New York State Corporate Law. Albany grants a corporation its right to exist, and Albany can prosecute violations of the law.

Anyone else? Anyone with experience in this?

The DA & AG won't do anything - that is the main problem - there were bills in NY Senate & Assembly for bill of rights for coops & condos - recently became only condo bill -however there are very fine laws on the books already the problem is that the Attorney General will not enforce them - lawyers for this type of action is $100,000 ti start - that is the other problem - my view is that if we could get publicity that would help immensely -

A pressure group perhaps ... of buildings with problematic boards. But we already have the good CNYC.

I had another idea, in trying to encourage the rating agencies to begin rating coops. Residents who lived in buildings managed by thuggish mafias might be enouraged to boot them once this situation seemed to quanifiably damage their apartment values.

D.

The AG will and has assisted many coops. If you decide to go that route, you must walk in with proof.
I guess the real question is, what is it you want? What is the goal?
Money? Retribution? Revenge? etc...
If you decide that financial restitution, then you may want to take your case civil, sue individually since the D&O will not cover intentful criminal acts.
All I all, your answer lies in asking yourself a more detailed question.

~AR

Right -- short but instructive jail terms, restitution to the coop, and, taking a page out of the securities industry, a way to bar them from holding office again.

I watched with interest that case of the guy who was kicked out of his coop, which stood up on appeal. Ditto the one in which the treasurer stole a million dollars, but the coop decided to keep it quiet. We know why -- if problems become public, buyers flee.

It's pretty hard.

It is best not to be high profile, you will distract buyers. But, at the same time you want to nail him/her. I would personally go the civil route, even as a class action if the building agrees, and sue them personally for damages.

Hmmm, class action. Does anyone know of an existing or developing case?

From all I've heard of the coop world, you'd think there'd be a mammoth one around somewhere.

Many years ago I had proof as well as now and it was sent to the AG - a staff member there called me and we had long discussions after each of my letters with documentation - yes they are stealing you bling - no the AG will not do coops - undermanned, underfunded - and the situation has gotten worse - they did Enron and Worldcom because they are "billions and we are only millions" same situation will not do - who do you know at AG that would consider our case and others

We've never been in this position.

But, no doubt your coop has board and officers insurance.
In as much as the carrier would need to cover any defalcation and attendant lawsuits, (depending on the lawsuit) they might be brought into the picture.

Again it is just a suggestion and not a recommendation.

Often ... but most D&O insurance, including ours, won't cover legal bills if the board is determined to have broken the law, or violated principles of sound business judgment -- e.g., I suspect thugging, fraud, self-dealing and theft aren't covered...

-Distressed

As they should not be!

What about you and new shareholders running for the board. I am not too convinced by statements that people are fearful. Yes, there are fearful people, but am convinced that people are not willing to assume their role and live to the contracted obligations of shareholders.

1. Participate in elections.
2. Serve on the board.
3. Abide by the rules.

Having 100 units vote for four to six bad pennies tell me that you should participate or move out. No sense in living in a place, not participate and critique.

AdC

It's the stock answer, but I'm afraid I find it, and the law as it protects coop living, insufficient.

I am neither a new SH nor a non-participant -- I served for a number of years as an officer, attend meetings, serve on committees, accomplished several key initiatives, etc.

Yes, I fear most residents don't care enough, and the ones who do, flee.

New York ought to be able to do better than that.

I do not want to enter into a long discussion, which may be more philosophical than what you expect as an answer:

Your own words,

"am neither a new SH nor a non-participant -- I served for a number of years as an officer, attend meetings, serve on committees, accomplished several key initiatives, etc."

-- Your only recourse is to continue to serve and be vigilant on the ways of others. This may lead you to many internal fights. YOU ARE YOUR OWN POLICEMAN - SUBSIDIARY PRINCIPLE of democracies - empowerment at the lower level possible.

"Yes, I fear most residents don't care enough, and the ones who do, flee."

--Again, you cannot do much about the indifference of those who are only interested in hanging their hats (live for a while) until they feel like it's time to go due to, e.g., work commitments, family, place does not fit their lifestyles or you name it!


New York ought to be able to do better than that.

--NO. New York is fine, people are not. Why should you impose the BIG BROTHER mentality, when SUBSIDIARY principle is not embraced and indifference reigns.


Join my camp or Winnebago mentality. Otherwise, grow a thick skin and be another indifferent resident.

AdC

AdC

Nah, AdC. Haven't general events of the last 10 years even hinted to you that a laissez faire approach can't solve every problem on earth?!

--Need new laws

It means you get involved if you care. Without involvement of those who care there is no better conditions.

Certain types of violent crimes decrease in summer because people are on the streets. Just like there are others that tend to decrease in winter when it's too cold.

Laws do not make much for you unless there is enforcement. Courts exist to administer the LAW. HOwever, what I read from many who expect BIG BROTHER is the COURT route means MONEY ($$$$$). Well, what else do you want???

An arbitrator that may pound on those that you wish to involve accuse without investigation, which in the end also means MONEY???

Unfortunately, nothing is for free in life: YOU WORK for the good of your community or co-op or YOU PAY to take people to COURT for being involved and serving themselves without your presence.

Sorry, but WHAT ELSE???


AdC

I want criminal prosecution for criminal acts. I want the DA, AG & police to be involved, even in $5,000 or $10,000 cases. I want criminal penalities to apply to people who give themselves priority in parking spaces, to managing agents who solicit and take bribes, to realtors-residents who abuse their board positions to snare business, to people who hire their pals for coop projects & pocket kickbacks.

Don't these situations sound familiar to you, AdC?

Distressed

People have as short a memory as amebas. In other words, you may prosecute 70% of crooks living in co-ops, but unless honest people get involve to prevent the problems or watch for their investment, HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF. So, in the past elevator companies have been prosecuted, management have been prosecuted, deals under the table have been prosecuted, but THEY CONTINUE TO HAPPEN in and out because GREED is a HUMAN TRAIT that cannot be erased. Then, there is LAZINESS, UNINVOLVEMENT and WHO CARES attitudes that allows CORRUPTION.

Years ago someone commented on the fate of the country in which he lived by saying, the GOOD PEOPLE are behind the iron safety bars placed in their windows while the BAD PEOPLE are walking the streets.

This is a good analogy. Unless every well-intended person is willing to serve on the board, corruption is bound to take place.

AdC

True and astutely expressed, AdC.

But what else can we do to make coop living viable?

Back to a Shareholders' Bill of Rights, consider this potentially useful provision:

"All financial records of the corporation will be open for inspection by shareholders."

That would've knocked out quite a bit of chicanery in my building, and in many others I can think of, in a way that just the vague, aggregate annual fiancials could not. Moreover, the very fact open records would scare off the crooks.

Is there a downside? Possibly a few owners in trouble, or in arrears, wouldn't appreciate such info becoming public. But I can't think of another downside. Can you?

--Distressed

It may sound vulgar, but to me sounds like "toilet paper." You'll be surprised the amounts of people who buy in co-ops and have no idea that they are partakers of the building soundness (financial, etc.)

Some of our shareholders think that our management is our landlord. So, what is the use of BILL OF RIGHTS when they have no idea what they own.

Sorry... BILL OF RIGHTS is another paper that looks that the NYTimes motto.

AdC

Sorry, AdC, am not quite so cynical as that.

Good, enforceable laws often work well enough, here in the U.S. anyway.

What's clear to me is that coops were, legislatively and legally, set up in an enormous hurry, with too little thought to later governance. Too bad we didn't have any modern James Madisons around back then.

But if coops are going to survive, they are going to be forced to improve.

I can see how a Bill of Rights might be useful, but I agree with AdC that it serves little purpose if Shs don't know what they own or how they fit into the coop picture.

I'm for a Bill of Responsibilities. People buy into a coop and say they understand what it is, but they don't have a clue. They do what they want and don't even consider that board approval may be needed first. They're all for rules and standards, but they're the last ones to uphold them. They think the coop should fix (and pay for) everything in their apt, from spackling a "mistake" hole when they hung a picture to stopping their floors from creaking. They want access to all coop financial documents, but they don't know what "accounts payable" means when the annual statement is reviewed at the annual meeting. They expect the super to do whatever they want him to do, but they don't want him to tell them they can't smoke in the stairwell or keep their bikes in the hall outside their apt. Naturally, this isn't true of all Shs...but enough. If it becomes a matter of too many, it could be the downfall of coops (in my opinion).

Boards, staff and mgmt need "education." So do Shs. Coops should have a manual with sections on all topics that tell Shs everything they should know about their coop, including what a coop is, bldg procedures, corporation policies, fees and charges, who's responsible for what, House Rules, etc. and master copies of forms like alteration agreements and sublet applications. We've had one for years and make sure every new Sh gets it. It answers many questions, saves mgmt and board members time having to explain something to Shs, and eliminated Sh excuses like "I didn't know I had to do that" or "No one ever told me that's a coop policy" or "I called the property agent but he wasn't in." Feeble excuses aren't accepted because all Shs have a manual and one of their RESPONSIBILITIES is to refer to it.

You'd expect a 30-yr-old who just "bought" his first apt not to know much about coops, but it's surprising how many 50-yr-olds don't either - and how many Shs who've lived in a coop for years still don't get it, don't want to or don't gripe about maintaining standards or enforcing rules unless it's expected of them.

Shs have rights, but with rights, benefits and advantages come responsibilities. At least, they should.

It is easy to say that good people should get involved but there is one thing you left out they have to be elected and many have tried but the corrupt and incompetent get elected because they have the votes and people do not listen when you try to explain things to them especially when you question the accountant and he says no and who are you - well you can't have corruption without the accountant -

Thank you for putting it as clearly as that!

New shareholders (and specially those who come from rentals and never have owned anything) would like to be treated as owners on one hand and have the full benefits of a rental unit. Individuals whose educations go beyond a bachelor degree all of the sudden lose the capacity to read and comprehend. The idea that they have responsibilities for their common ownership does not cross their brains.

Right now the co-op in which I live has over 65% new shareholders since 2003. The whole process of training has to be rekindled. This is a never-ending process. Board need to be atuned to this too.

AdC

We created a small (5.5"x8.5") manual that we give to all new Shareholders (also distributed to Tenants and existing Shs). It's a summary of the PL, in plainer English, and covers everything from renovations to pets.

I recommend it highly.

How could I get one. We would meed it too so badly...

I created ours for the co-op. I'm in the communications business, so it was a snap... but really, anyone who's capable of clear writing can do it.

Just start with your PL, outline what areas need to be covered (sublets, pets, noise, repairs, renovations, etc.), and what your PL says about them.

Paraphrase these rules in plain English. You might want to run the finished version past your managing agent or attorney to be sure it's both clear and accurate.

RLM's idea of a SHs' manual that puts the PL in simplified language is a good idea. I did one for our coop. Ours is a composite of manuals I saw in other bldgs. Along with PL info, ours contains all coop policies the board's enacted, other key info not in the PL, a copy of our house rules, and our alteration agreement and sublet applications so SHs can photocopy them as needed.

When we send a letter to SHs about a new or revised policy, new fee, etc. we state at the end of the letter (in caps + boldfaced) that it should be inserted in Section X of the manual. This way the manual is always current. Our mgmt office also keeps a "Master Manual" with all such letters attached to it so we can give SHs who need another manual if they misplace theirs, or new SHs, one that's completely up to date.

Our manual is a 3-ring binder with tabbed sections and a TofC so SHs can find things easily. Our sections are:
Introduction
Apt Facts (sq ftage, shares, rooms, etc. for all apt lines)
Apt Use & Maintenance
Apt Improvements & Renovations
Apt Sales
Building Staff
Charges, Fees & Fines
Common Building Areas
Complaints & Reporting Issues
House Rules
Moves & Deliveries
Recycling & Trash
Repairs
Subletting
General Information (a page with phone #s for mgmt, super, etc. and a couple blank pages where SHs can write notes, phone #s for other SHs or whatever they want)

Never occurred to us to list the square footage/rooms for each line... seems as though that would be good information to include, though. (The rest of our info is there... and in only 12 booklet-size pages - quite handy.)

How did you figure the square footage? -- realtor's numbers or actual measurements? Our building's old enough, we don't have original architect's drawings; perhaps yours is younger and they're still on file?

We figured sq footage based on actual measurements and we noted this on the page in our manual. Realtors' numbers vary too widely and we didn't want to have a realtor number misinterpreted by SHs as something written in stone just because it might be in our manual.

I'm glad you did it accurately. There are such inflated numbers out there... both "rounded up" and "created". Better that your Shareholders be able to trust your information.

I agree completely - got any ideas there are many many too many coops in the same condition as ours - some know it some do not but the frequency and amount of theft is massive - some people do not want to acknowledge it is in their building -I know some very rich people in Forest Hills and they know what is going on but will not say anything

Well Sara does your coop have a policy regarding "pet rules"
Also just because a dog looks threatning does not make it vicious. Find out does the dog have a " history of violence" (thats a movie also ha). And finally it should/does not make a differece who owns the dog. Board president, etc.

Hope this helped FN

I don't know of a law about muzzling dogs in elevators.

In our co-op, all dogs are required to be leashed and under the control of their handlers in all public spaces of the building, at all times. If a dog were so dangerous as to require muzzling, the board could choose to tell the owner to find a new home for it.

It is up to your house rules to define the leash/muzzle rules in the buiolding. Some smaller buildings mandate that pets must use stairs.
write a letter to the board and inform them that you feel threatened in your building and you have the right to feel safe and secure in your own building, etc..

~AR

Sorry AR, Sara mentioned that the dogs made her nervous. You mentioned that Sara was threatened?. Two different points here. It is possible that the dogs look vicious but may not be threatening.

FN

Don't matter.
The point is not - if they are vicious…. If i feel threatened, I am.
I understand that a certain level of her perception is reality, but nevertheless, no one should have to feel nervous just because some one else may feel they have a right to have their dog in the open.

Further - a history of biting does not tell what a dog will do today. Many people get bit by dogs that never bit anyone before.

A coop/condo should consist of everyone understanding and working together towards a single healthy comfortable environment without compromising the interests of the building as a whole.

~AR

Sara: An idea if you have more than 1 elevator. I used to live in a condo that had many dogs. Many people didn't want to get in elevators with them if they looked or were known to be unfriendly. We had 4 elevators and 2 were designated for dogs. Their owners could only use those unless 1 of the others came and no one else got in. It worked very well.

If you have 1 elevator and someone is nervous about getting in with a dog, maybe that person (or the dog owner) should offer/agree to wait and take the elevator on the next trip.

that is what usually happens though some people hesitate to openly discuss it.

Can you explain/elaborate a little bit so we can help.

FN

I cant go too much into detial for various reasons but I can tell you that it involved a building employee as a primary suspect in a theft. the determination was made byt the police and the coops lawyers got involved althoght he union lawyers are supposed to be working for members. in fact, ti may just have been an inappropriate usage fo funds byt the board pres - anyhow - some 8 months later they are attempting to bill the shareholder even thought he client was techincally the coop and the cost was incurred by the board and managing agent as they needed consultation.

> "the matter was caused by an incident with a shareholder but it was not a direct incident in that the shareholder actually did nothingdirectly to incur the legal fees ... "

I'm no lawyer, ba, but that seems to be the crux of the issue.

It's entirely possible that "an incident with a shareholder" would result in the shareholder paying legal fees, but it seems impossible to tell from this. It's worth remembering that one can incur liability (such as for a bill) even if one is not directly involved.

In our co-op, if a shareholder makes a request (or a demand) that requires the co-op to use legal services, the shareholder is charged for those services. The alternative -- that everyone in the co-op should share in paying the bill -- just isn't fair to the rest.

thanks - there was no direct request. it was entirely an option of the board to seek counsel and they did not even have to incur the fee. now they are trying to pass it on - the costs - and it seems inappropriate. again, the shareholder did nothing directly.

The board certainly has the option of seeking counsel, even if the issue in question appears clear-cut.

This shareholder may certainly ask the board for an explanation of their reasoning behind passing on the bill. Be sure the person does so in a polite, non-confrontational way, to ensure a response.

the board has informed the shareholder the charge was an error. phew.

Yay!

Nice to know that your board can admit a mistake.

Before the next heavy rain and things deteriorates further you need to take action

Alexander Wall Corp.for property damage and disaster recovery specialists in the industry.

Gary J. Alexander, President
877-868-4373 • galexander@alexanderwall.com • www.alexanderwall.com

I don't have anyone to refer you to, but I agree that you must remove this soiled carpet immediately. Clean the area underneath with some sort of high-end professional solvent. Or at least a bleach solution!

I use Spic and Span Carpet Man @ 866-299-0872
they are very good and inexpensive
for flood damage, cleaning, etc...

~AR

In a situation like your this is how I would handle it.

1. Make sure the drain line is clear. Have a professional company come in and take care of it. Do you need a cover to catch leaves, debris etc? Check the drain line on a continual basis.

2. Check to see if you have insurance coverage. Document and take photographs if necessary.

3. Have a professional company come in and address the carpet situation straigh away. More than likely thd padding underneath the carpet is retaining the water/moisture and causing an odor at this stage. Hope I helped

FN.

Did you check to see if you have insurance coverage for this loss?

The best method to keep this from happening is to clean your sewer exit every 6 monts. You'll be surprised, if you have washers in your building, the soap balls that are retrieved from your building sewer exit line. In fact, this is why it is recommended to use liquid soaps and abandon the powder.

Our co-op had such a backup into the boiler and since then, the board learned its lesson. The cost of such a service is $360 - $400 in Westchester and we pay it with a BIG SMILE, knowing it will not happen as a result of NEGLIGENCE.

Finally, there are many good ODOR COUNTERACTANTS and even liquids use to disinfect floors able to kill such contamants from feces, etc. Keep a supply for emergency and, in your case, I will get rid of the carpet and buy a new one. So, its $3,000 to $3,500, pay it and get rid of the contaminants and odors at the same time.

AdC

As a rule of thumb anything that is outside the wall is the shareholder responsibility, anything inside the wall is the Coop/buildings responsibility. There are some situations where a pipe may be corroded both outside and inside a wall. Your building may have a ruling on the responsibility issue in such circumstances. Our Coop absorbes the cost in a situations like the above as part of our prevetive maintenance program.

FN

it protuds from sall so it seems it must be coop resonsibility. anything attached to it , would be the shareholders. no? seems standard.

The nipple is usually begining within the wall to the T fitting, also within the wall. This nipple (probably a galvanised piece of pipe) is a common problem and is a building related repair (even though 2/3 of it may be extended out of the wall.)

In our co-op the shareholder is responsible for this small piece of pipe. This is a threaded piece connecting the sink's waste elbow to the local internal line in the wall only common to your bathroom or two bathrooms if back-to-back.

Because you have exclusive access to this little piece of pipe (not to mention that it's your soap and hair buildup that entangles here) and to change the elbow a good plumber will do the pipe as well, PLEASE absorb the cost of the little pipe since the work should not add much more to the invoice of your replacement of waste elbow and small pipe. Nickel and diming happens to be ridiculous and the elbow and little galvanized pipe entails no more than $80 by the person who snakes a line.

i have to say, well meaning as you might be, the emai you have posted makes no sense. the nipple is over 40 years old. it is rotted out with corroded threads. the internal part of it is unreachable - inside the wall. what on earth are you saying? i dont think you understand or have full knowledge. please try to be more accurate. thanks. and this is NOT nickel and diming this is expensive plumbing for which we pay thosands of dolares of monthly mntnce.

The pipe (Nipple) I believe he is talking about is the water supply, not the waste line underneath the sink.

the item (nipple) goes intot he walla nd must be screwed into a t pipe. if they want me to screw with it (so to speak) for sure it will drownt he downstairs neighbor. it must be coop respons. wish me luck. they are cheap and they discriminate.

I don't think there is need for sarcasm to anyone providing an opinion; thats why the site is here...

The repair should be a building related repair as I previously stated; even if it is partly out of the wall.
Cheep is expensive in the end. If these are left to the shareholder it will go neglected and incur more damages and cost to the building than if the coop would just go in and make the repair as soon as it is evident.

some coop bylaws state that it is a shareholder responsibility, but still opt top make the repair because of the aforesaid reason.

~AR

No. Water supplies are small pipes that end in two small valves. These valves protrude from the wall and connect to your faucet. The pipe they are talking about connects your waste under your bathroom sink into the internal plumbing.

For the person's information with fear to flood the apartment below, please note that if the line is not back to back, this is your private internal line starting from the bathtub, connecting to the sink and falling just one of two inches above the toilet into the stack.

AdC

This is done quite often in our building and it entails very little work for a plumber who cleans the line. In fact, when the plumber is called to snake a severely backup line always find the rotted elbow and pipe that you refer to and it's changed as a routine item with no big sweat. The interior pipe with the aerating pipe is the co-op and we change it at co-op expense without batting our eyes.

AdC

You mean you want to add it to the corporation's policy, right? As opposed to adding it to the policy of a single apartment in the co-op?

I dont think you can add it to coop's ins. however, every coop should have a GROUP RISK policy. muxh cheaper.

Thanks for the tip -- I'll make sure our co-op is covered with a group risk policy.

Individual shareholders should add to their homeowners' policies a loss assessment coverage. In the case of Castle Village, the large assessments shareholders are paying to cover the costs of the collapsed wall are, generally, covered by loss assessment coverage -- if the shareholders had it (and had enough).

What's enough? Hard to say. After Castle Village, I increased my line of coverage to $10,000.

Check previous posts/archieves. This subject was discussed many times.

FN.

Did you contact the owner of the apartment or the sponsor?
I am sure the PL or the subordinate rules must address this in some manner, even if not directly. The owner will have to cure just as any other shareholder, especially if you prove a breach of lease.

... this is another good reason why I highly recommend yearly reviews for all sublet applicants, whereas the owner must submit a sublet renewal application annually. This would provide you the leverage needed in cases as this.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, you do have options, but must read your governing documents to determine what they are and how to proceed.

Best
~AR

Just finished a reno ourselves... the supplier of our new appliances expressed surprise we hadn't included a disposal. When I stated because the co-op has had problems with pipes clogging (our building's 100 years old) we hadn't even considered a disposal, he stated that they'd come a very long way in technology and the disposals now were capable of shredding garbage so fine, it wouldn't clog.

Don't know if this is the case or not; our board hasn't made a policy on the subject, in any case.

Unless your plumbing was originally designed to handle garbage grinding or major laundry loads in apartments, I would say NO to such equipment.

Only had one apartment unit that had it. At the time it was placed under the sink the co-op was too new to know right from left. During the years, this was the WORST line with clogs - I would say every month we had a major clog and on more than two occasions major damage to apartments as the clogs also affected the apartments below.

These disposals may be great for single housing and for builidngs whose pipes or infrastructure was built for that. Otherwise, let people handle garbage the usual way.

AdC

Thank you to all for your input.
It was very helpful

We also found an article on the Cooperator about this:
http://cooperator.com/articles/191/1/Garbage-Disposers/Page1.html

Unless your plumbing was originally designed to handle garbage grinding or major laundry loads in apartments, I would say NO to such equipment in apartments.

Only had one apartment unit with such equipment. At the time laundry equipment and garbage grinder were installed, the co-op was too new to know right from left. Perhaps it was heaven on earth for shareholders, but a real issue for the co-op.

During the years, the apartment line was the WORST l with clogs - I would say every month we had a major clog and on more than two occasions it caused major damage to apartments as the clogs also affected stack and the apartments below.

The problem was resolved, when the current shareholder had a major local issue in her apartment and decided to disconnect the equipment. At that time, the co-op stepped in and prohibited the shareholder from installing a new one. The problems disappeared like MAGIC!!!

These disposals may be great for single housing and for builidngs whose pipes or infrastructure was built for that. Otherwise, let people handle garbage the usual way.

AdC

Like most responses I am not if favor of them. Why create a problem when one does not exist in the first place. It reminds me of all those people that want to install washer dryers in their apartment and when they back up they question why. The plumbing was not designed for such and I have yet to see garbage been ground down to a state that it does not line the drain lines. (of course the sales person will tell you different)

FN.

I suppose I will raise my hand and vote against, as everyone else did... I think that's unanimous?

You may get away without problems for the first few years, but it will catch up.

~AR

Folks,

The plumbing is one piece of the equation.

The issues really relate to residents.

To be effective a garbage grinder/disposal needs water to flush the minced pieces.

Many, if not most residents fail to flush the residual material by running water for a minute or two.

This creates blockages which build and eventually create backlogs of water and disposal material.

Just conjure for a minute that kitchens are back to back. Most often there is a common waste line to the main waste line.

What happens?

The adjacent apartment receives a backup of water and debris.

We've banned disposals as they are too much trouble.

But, you should decide for yourselves.

This appears to be a no brainer (forgive me). If the building requires the super to be available for emergencies etc how are you going to reach him/her? Surely you do not expect the super to pay out of his/her own pocket when you are the ones calling him/her. So what if the super makes a few calls to friends. Are you going to be penny wise and pound foolish? I guess it is OK for large corporations to have huge expense accounts and we turn around and question a few dollars on a cell phone. Finally when I go on vacation I bring my cell phone and make several calls (roaming charges/international) work related which the Coop pay as I am addressing their needs.

fn

I resisted to this idea, but had to cave in.

Reason: Today there is no perfect technology. Beepers or cell phones are all wireless these days and you need to go to more expensive beeper service, i.e., two-way and/or with text-messaging services to have a good coverage for your emergencies.

1. Beepers need to be two-way so that there is memory in the event that the super is beeped and he/she is in a "dead zone." Not like the golden era of beepers when they used to retain the numbers. The cost for two-way beeper is approx. $14 a month.

2, Cell phones also have "dead zones" and super may be out of touch with the building emergency because the ringtone is not available; however, there is phone mail to the rescue.


My thnking (not necessarily your own or anyone else's):

1.It is best to have the co-op pay for the equipment and service. Tell the super that the phone must remain for the replacement when on vacation and in this way your co=op does not have to suffer interruptions in the event of emergencies.

2. Have a written document that super is responsible for misuse and loss of equipment and charges resulting from such problems.

3. If you pay a stipend for the use of the super's phone, still make a written document as to what you expect by way of services and what the calls should cover.

4. Make sure that the cell phone provider you use have the widest coverage possible in your city and within the building. If there are "dead zones", you should know what are these are how long is the super supposed to spend in those area, i.e., boiler room, some dark storage area in basement or even elevators and hallways.

Whatever decision you make, it should make sense by way of service and cost.

AdC

Adc while I agree with most of your opinions/responses it sounds like we are waiting here for the superintendent to miss a call and jump on him/her. Of course there are dead zones etc. What you need in a situation like that is to have a back up plan, ie, call the handyman, have the concierge call the plumber etc and get the ball rolling so to speak.

Come to think of it now, I had a manageing agent whome for some reason when I called after hours seemed to be always in The Holland tunnell (or dead zone as he used call it). Not sure if he eventually came out of that tunnell.

FN

Good news (maybe not for the agent though) Holland Tunnel and the others are no longer dead zones.
PG

Well, perhaps it is a punishing mentality, but some supers need to be waken up by some sort of corrective dose.

I'm sure you got your managing agent out of the tunnel after being too fat, i.e., the same excuse became overused to fit in the tunnel. This is what it sounds like, too.

My issue is not cell phones, but costs and if you have been served well with a service, why pay more just because it talks?

IN fact, my credo is there are very, but very few things in life that I consider emergency. So, those things have to be pretty critical.
AdC

I pay all of my supers cell phones. What i did, is switch my spers to nextel, with free incoming, then just pay the $59 monthly fee and he is responsible for any overages. Since incoming is free, the bills are always at a minimum anyway (and if i cant get him on the phone, theres always the two way built in radio!)

There are two answers to that...
A technical one and logical one.
Technically and legally: Subletting is when the lessee or tenant rents out all or part of the apartment to another person, while still maintaining status as the prime tenant/shareholder. so, if the person is house-sitting, they would not be paying rent and no legal sublet action is taking place, therefore, no infringement. However, some boards do, in the house rules further define subletting to include housesitting for more than XX weeks.

You need to know first, who is paying the maintenance, and other bills, if it is the house sitter, then let them know that it is considered a sublet (being non-descriptive about your reasoning as possible) and that it could not be permitted; that is, if the Board is opposed to it.
then you might wish to amend your house rules to include other scenarios such as this, time frames, etc.

i typed fast, did I convey the thought correctly?

~AR

8 moths is 2/3 of the year and cousins are not considered members of the family. Ready your proprietary lease for occupancy for the definition of family members.

Finally, how do you know the person is a cousin? Well, a difficult one to provide proof.

AdC

8 months is 2/3 of the year and cousins are not considered members of the family. Read your proprietary lease for occupancy for the definition of family members.

Finally, how do you know the person is a cousin? Well, a difficult one to provide proof.

Although I usually agree with AR, "housesitting" becomes a rather elastic term. In addition to what AR said about proving who is paying for the basic services, it comes to mind that why not housesitting the following year, etc. Why not start a swap of property with a foreign owner to spend vacations, etc.

I think unless you have a building doorman and strict definitions, it will be difficult to control your occupancy and a chaos may follow.

AdC

I think you hit the nail right on the head with creating strict definitions, so these terms do not become, or remain "elastic".

Best
~AR

I agree that you need strict definitions of who can stay in apts. Most Prop Leases state that a "guest" is allowed for up to 30 days (or longer with board approval in writing) but the primary SH/resident must be in occupancy at the same time - the guest can't stay there alone.

Gerry - As AdC said, it's difficult to prove that a person is a cousin. My guess is, whether the person who'd apt-sit for your SH is a cousin or not, he just needs or would like a place to stay in NYC for 8 mos. Why does he have to live there? Most people who go away for an extended period have someone come in once/twice a week to check the apt, collect mail, water plants, etc. Is the cousin from outside NYC and able to drop work or other commitments to live in your SH's apt for 8 mos? If he lives in the area, why can't he just come in once/twice a week to take care of things?

Sorry, I accidentally hit "send" too quickly.

Gerry - What if your SH goes to LA for 8 mos, you let the cousin stay in her apt, then the SH tells you she has to stay in LA another 6 mos or a year. At that point would you tell her the cousin has to move out? That could be sticky.

It would also be difficult to prove if the cousin is paying the SH rent and if this constitutes a sublet. The SH may tell you he isn't paying anything but it's not necessarily true, whether he's really a cousin or not.

Gerry - your board has to define cases like this and decide if you want to allow the cousin to apt-sit. This has come up with us a few times and our board always says it's too easy to turn apts into a hotel for friends and relatives.

One of your main concerns should also be that your SH pays maintenance, etc. every month. You should have her address in LA and be able to reach her. If you let the cousin apt-sit, you could require the SH to pay 8 mos maintenance in advance. That's stiff but some bldgs would do it. And what if you send SHs letters with important news about the bldg, new policies, financial issues? I think you should be able to send such letters directly to the SH and not assume the cousin would forward them. A lot can happen in a coop in 8 mos and you have to keep all SHs informed.

I think you need more info from your SH and you need to make the terms of any apt-sitting you decide to allow very specific and very clear. Just my opinion.

Thank you all for your responses.
Our Board has agreed to treat this situation as a sublet.

For your information, BP, proprietary leases "lifts" the wording that you mentioned below from NYS Tenant Law regarding tenants obligations to inform landlords:

"Most Prop Leases state that a "guest" is allowed for up to 30 days (or longer with board approval in writing) but the primary SH/resident must be in occupancy at the same time - the guest can't stay there alone.


In other words, any shareholder may have a guest up to 30 days. Of course, guest means a person that is not left alone in an apartment. Only hotels refer to people who pay to stay in a room of a property "a guest". IN fact, by stretch of imagination, you may say that management who represents the hotel owner stay in residence 24 hrs by managing the "castle."

AdC

no grey area here. its a sublet.