The Mechanics of Invoking a 'Pullman' Proceeding: Here's How It Works

New York City, New York State, Manhattan

Feb. 6, 2014 — The landmark court decision in 40 W. 67th Street v. Pullman (2003) set the precedent that fully established that New York State co-op boards could, within certain criteria, evict shareholders found to be "objectionable." Many jocularly call this "the nuclear option," and it should only be used as a last resort. There are options boards can take before circumstances reach that extreme point. 

But if you do need to pull a Pullman, how do you go about it?

Cases involving hoarders and others with mental-health issues that put the rest of the building at risk are common. And Pullman has been invoked in cases of frequent loud music, uncontrollable dogs, obscene behavior, and even a refusal to replace old, loud, excessively vibrating air conditioners.

Collyer Board Meeting

A board member at an 80-unit, five-building co-op complex on the East Side of Manhattan, who requested anonymity because the issue is active, currently has "a case of multiple instances of bed bugs and either smoke or fire conditions and also Collyer's," he says, referring to what the International OCD Foundation calls Collyer Brothers Syndrome and the American Psychiatric Association calls hoarding disorder.

A married couple there is "not providing access for purposes of eliminating the bedbugs, and [has] taken bedbug-infested clothing to the laundry room, unprotected, and left [it] there while waiting for washers and dryers," says the board member. "We have tried to address this with them. Within days of the apartment being cleaned out" under board aegis, "the hoarding started again. They didn't want any social service agencies coming in. A dozen to two dozen tenant-shareholders have written letters either encouraging or demanding the board take action to have them removed for health and safety reasons."

The board has been using alternatives to Pullman. But it's still preparing for the worst. That means, says Bruce Levinson, a veteran Manhattan attorney in private practice, that, "You really have to build up a case," says Levinson.

And it helps to not only follow the proprietary lease to the letter but also exceed it. "You always need to send a notice," he adds. "Not necessarily a notice to cure, because that might be an act of futility with someone who's perpetually ignoring directives they receive, but you do have to give notice. You're going to start the case because that's the right thing to do. And a lot of judges will ask, ‘What did you tell them?' And you can say, ‘We've given notices, we've given opportunities, we've done this and that.'"

According to John LaGumina of The LaGumina Law Firm, boards should gather as much detail as possible to shore up their case. "Part of the [standard] proprietary-lease provisions is whether the conduct was repeated after notice," he says. "And the notice has to be specific. Otherwise the court may find it too ambiguous to enforce." What kinds of details? "It depends on the issue, but dates, times, witnesses — the more the better."

Pullmanizing in Practice

Now let's say that despite your legitimate best efforts, a Pullman action is unavoidable. What then? Typically, a co-op meeting in which the accused has a chance to defend himself or herself follows.

"If the initial notice was detailed enough and the person repeated the conduct, you've satisfied the predicate notice and due process provision," says LaGumina. "Now you set up the special meeting. Send a meeting notice, saying the purpose is to vote whether or not to terminate a lease due to undesirable conduct after written notice. Make sure the offending person gets a copy of the notice. It's like any other special meeting, and [shareholders] can even use proxies."

See also... 

While some proprietary leases allow the board alone to vote, he says, "Most require the shareholders. The ones that allow only the board, the courts will look at those cases more closely. If you have the shareholders' vote, the court will see that just about everyone in the place doesn't want that person living with them."

Sometimes, says attorney Marc Schneider, managing partner of Schneider Mitola, an offender at that point will often accept a resolution "where they agree to sell the apartment, since they're better off selling it of their own volition than having their [shareholder] rights terminated, in which case it can get a price below market value" because of a compressed time frame. 

In fact, that's the resolution pending at the East Side co-op. "The couple has gotten a lawyer and we're negotiating with the lawyer," says the board member. "They have indicated they don't want to live in the building, they just want to leave, and we're negotiating [such issues as] a time frame, what happens if they don't sell the apartment, and also their continued occupancy. If they're willing to relocate while they're trying to sell, we'll give them more time without litigation."

 

For more, see our Site Map or join our Archive >>

Subscribe

join now

Got elected? Are you on your co-op/condo board?

Then don’t miss a beat! Stories you can use to make your building better, keep it out of trouble, save money, enhance market value, and make your board life a whole lot easier!