AR - Thanks for the info about the new door lock requirement and corresponding DoB regulations. Very informative. I passed it on to my building's super and property manager.

AR - I echo Steven's sentiments. Thank you for this information.

If you need assistance financing this modernization project, please contact us. We established this company specifically to assist with this expensive work.

Structural System Services LLC
dj@structuralsystem.services
917-524-5700

This is offering an interesting solution: arguselevator.com

Their device actually fits inside the existing elevator controller, so there is no need to install an external enclosure, which makes the installation cheaper and faster.

Also, the lead time is very short (48 hours) since there is no specific hardware customization required.

This post details the cost. The information might help others identify if it's a blanket proposal from the elevator vendor.

https://www.elevatorlab.com/blog/cost-to-install-elevator-door-lock-monitoring-system

Prior to ordering suggest to visit our web site to learn more about the types of devices in the market and irs cost. Visit www.FSSG.US

Argus Elevator (https://arguselevator.com) is offering a very convenient solution.

Their device actually fits inside the existing elevator controller, so there is no need to install an external enclosure, which makes the installation cheaper and faster.

Also, the lead time is very short (48 hours) since there is no specific hardware customization required.

For relatively newer buildings, the mechanical overlay solution can range anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000, but those older buildings that require total modernization, the cost factor can be catastrophic.

Our firm is comprised of former elevator and finance professionals and can help finance these unplanned and expensive projects. We launched this specialized service to assist with this compliance regulation.

If you need assistance, please contact Structural System Services LLC:
dj@structuralsystem.services
917-524-5700
www.structuralsystem.services

Hi Anthony,

This issue has been discussed on here before, so you might look for previous threads on surveillance videos.

An article from The Cooperator (magazine of the Counsel of NYC Cooperatives and Condominiums) provides a decent basic overview of surveillance regulations and practices. You can read the article here: https://cooperator.com/article/the-state-of-surveillance/full#cut

--- Steve

Neither the old tread or the article sheds much light on third party usage and protection against liability of sharing the video, E.g. what if I give the video to an attorney for a slip and fall case and he sees his wife cheating on him, or a drug deal, or it does not capture what was intended for some reason.. etc.. crazy extremes but just making a point., there's thousands of scenarios... . but now I'm at liability for putting that out there! I think buildings and owners of these systems should know the potential risks and mitigate them as best as possible before they become an issue.
~AR

I am not an attorney, so please do not rely on this as legal advice.

As far as I know, anyone in a public space has no expectation of privacy. This includes the common areas of coops and condos. The same cheating wife, drug deal, etc could just as easily be captured on a tourist's smartphone or video camera with the same results. Think of all the videos posted on Youtube that capture unintended events.

I would assume that any building that asked to provide a copy of their surveillance camera video without any legal process like a subpoena would first prudently go to their attorney for advice. Even then the attorney should be consulted.

I do not think, though, that there is any immediate liability attached to providing a copy of a surveillance video tape, any more than providing a copy of a smartphone file.

If you learn anything more on this please share with the rest of us.

Thanks!
--- Steve

Great job Steve.....right on the money.

Thanks, Tim. :-)

A problem with restricting access to CCTV recordings is similar to the distribution of purchase application packages. As some coops email PDFs
of applications to Board members, sometimes videos of common area incidents can be sent to Board mrmberd for review. It’s difficult to control access once the Send button is pressed.
A procedure needs to address how long to retain a recording of an incident if it is about to be automatically deleted, and who decides to retain it.

In order to know what recourse you may have, it seems that you'd have to show how you were hurt/damaged by the PM's comments and/or actions.

For example, let's say your disability prevents you from climbing the front steps and you requested that the PM install a handicap access entrance to your building. If his response was "You don't look handicapped to me so we're not installing an access ramp", then you are being physically hurt/damaged by the PM's comments and you probably have a good chance of showing how his comments hurt your quality of life.

But, if he made a nasty remark that only hurt your feelings, there may not be much recourse for you.

I can tell you from experience that you will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his comment was discriminatory, and you will have to show how you were hurt/damaged as a result. Can you prove it? Were there witnesses? Was he stupid enough to put it in writing? For your sake I hope so.

Discrimination actions require as much supporting documentation, evidence, and proof as possible in order to win your case. They will often end up being adjudicated by the NYC Commission on Human Rights.

Here's some links that may help:
http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1525/report-discrimination
http://www1.nyc.gov/site/fairhousing/contact-us/file-a-complaint.page
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/enforcement/complaint-process.page


I wish you good luck.

Unfortunately, the hallway is a common area and not subject to privacy laws. It is perfectly legal to "tape" the common hallway. HOWEVER, it will be illegal to set up a camera where the device can peer into someone's private residence.

A slippery slope.

This concerns an individual resident recording activity in the hallway - that is different than the management or coop doing it.

A resident cannot do this - they can only record their own doorway itself.

I agree with DM and his interpretation. It's the same thing as what our attorney told us.

We've had this issue come up from time to time. I use this article as a guide for what is and is not allowed.

https://cooperator.com/article/the-state-of-surveillance/full#cut

For a possible answer to the original question, start reading from the third paragraph above the section labeled "Do It Right, Or Not at All". You might also want to search for more information online.

Unfortunately, the hallway is not considered a place where a person has "a reasonable expectation of privacy". You may be protected if this is a bylaw of the corporation.

If you suspect the device has an AUDIO feature then this is ABSOLUTELY against the law.

It's a pretty good bet that the smart doorbell with video will also have audio. How else to ask "who is it" remotely.

I bet that the audio recording prohibition applies only to video *recordings* that also record audio. A device like a smart doorbell does not record video or audio under normal circumstances, so it is within the privacy requirements. If it is modified to actually record what it sees and hears, then it runs afoul of the privacy regs.

True story....however, if the device has a feature which lets you view the hallway and listen in on conversations without any active prompt from the outside it is an illegal "bug".

I like that idea, I may get one. Why? We have a very controlling board president who thinks it's her building to do what she feels or likes. Can't count how many times I threw out my garbage to the compactor room and she's roaming the halls. One of the share holders opened up her door and the president was listening at her neighbors door. So why not?

Only one of those apartments is the primary residence.

Ask the shareholder for his drivers license. For me, that will show his primary residence.

He can’t show multiple apartment numbers on his drivers license...he can only show one - the one that is his primary residence.

Who would be allowed to live in the apartments that are not the primary residence?

In my opinion, if not the shareholder owner, and possibly family members (depending on the wording of the proprietary lease), no one else would be allowed to live there without the approval of the board. I think at best they could sublet the additional apartments, and that would require board approval. Otherwise they would have to remain empty.

interested in who is living in the other co-op and how they have been justifying the other people's occupancy. The proprietary lease only speaks of the occupancy of 1 apartment.

Besides the obvious non-primary occupancy like a legal sublet or holding on speculation, there are a few other allowable reasons. In my building there is one large family that owns two adjoining units. They have plans to eventually combine the units (we allow this). Until then, the parents live in one unit and the kids in the other.

Another allowable multiple ownership is the second unit serves as an "office" for someone who works from home. Lots of space and good tax benefits. As long as there is no client or customer traffic and no abnormal package deliveries or other building service disruptions or overburdenings, we would allow it. The just can only claim one of the two units for the real estate tax abatement.

I agree with Marty. The managing agent would also have to know which is the primary residence and which is not because it affects the distribution of the annual Dept of Finance real estate tax abatement. The abatement is only available to apartments which are a primary residence.

1. Shareholders holding 3 or less stock certificates in the same building can receive a real estate tax abatement - if they are using all 3 apartments (office, guest room, etc.) If they sublet any of the units than that unit is not primary. The units do not need to be combined or contiguous. see: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/finance/benefits/landlords-coop-condo.page. If they are all being used by the shareholder and not sublet to others than they can all be considered the primary residence. Many people combine apartments and do not combine the stock.
2. Tax Return address determines where your primary apartment is. Not drivers license or voting registration.

The son absolutely cannot vote. Only the person whose name is on the stock certificate and proprietary lease can vote.

Marym is correct that the son cannot vote. However the apartment still has a voice in the voting.

When a shareholder passes away and is the only individual named on the stock certificate, their estate, which "stands in the shoes of the deceased", has the right to vote the shares of the apartment. In NYS, if there was a will and it was probated, the executor named in the will is the individual who does the voting. If there was no will and no probate, the Surrogates Court will appoint an estate administrator, and that person does the voting.

Even though the sons are named in the deceased's will, they do not automatically become the owners of the stock. Most proprietary leases provide for a board approval process before there is a formal share transfer. If for some reason the sons are rejected (usually for financial reasons), the estate will be forced to sell the shares to an acceptable purchaser, or maybe try to sublet the apartment if allowed by the co-op.

I hope this helps.

Thanks Steve very informative.

Hard to know why they're asking for the information without more details.

What kind of information are they asking for and what is the situation requiring the information?

Are you selling or buying? If selling use a broker that works with other agent, I found Corcoran is the best.
If your buying, a good agent will make sure you have 20% and your financials are good before you decide to buy. I find Pre Approval is the way to go. Best of luck.

Doesn't sound discriminatory to me. Shareholders have invested 6 or 7 figures to become part of the co-op. Renters have invested zero.

Shareholders' rights come before renters' rights.

The policy doesn't say renters can't use the storage lockers. It says they can use them only after shareholders have been offered the lockers first.

Your answer sounds elitist to me. It is not about equal access to amenities.
The past system has always been an equal first come first served system. We only have 11 renters out of 90 units.

The storage lockers are the property of the co-op for the use of shareholders. Renters - whether statutory tenants (rent regulated) or
market rate subtenants approved by the co-op - are leasing from a shareholder. Only a shareholder can enter into a direct agreement with the co-op. If the co-op wants to offer a place on the waiting list for non-
resident shareholders who are leasing apartments - whether a sponsor or an individual shareholder - that's appropriate. Even if certain conditions to non-resident shareholders are applied - if warranted in the
Proprietary Lease as a decision reserved for the Board - that is also appropriate.
Many co-ops DO NOT permit non-resident shareholders to sublet storage lockers or in-house gym memberships or parking spots - all of which are amenities available to shareholders.

Excellent explanation, mr.gardenz. Shareholders essentially collectively own the building and their individual apartments. Within NYC laws and regulations, sublet tenants' rights are always subordinate to shareholder rights. Access to building amenities are guaranteed to shareholders but discretionary to sublets. Remember that if a sublet is not happy with a particular situation they can always not renew their lease. Shareholders don't have quite as easy a way out of a bad situation.