NEW YORK CITY

You might say it was fun while it lasted. The luxury market was on fire, and developers were testing those one percent waters to see how high prices could climb. As 2014 drew to a close, however, experts warned that the bubble would burst and a slowdown would begin. Sure enough, old man winter did manage to slow everything down. And now, as the Daily News reports, it looks like developers are getting "real about real-estate prices." That's right. Developers are slashing prices by as much as 25 percent. That sure sounds like a lot, but of course when you're not a gazillionaire, there simply isn't much difference between $40 million and $29.95 million or between $110 million and $82 million. It's interesting to see, however, that even the super rich, who arguably according to many have money to burn, can spot when something is overpriced. You can't blame the developers for trying their luck, though. The Daily News calls it "the real-estate equivalent of throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks" and quotes one developer as saying, "at the beginning of the sales process, you have nothing to lose when you list your penthouse at a pie-in-the-sky price." You never know when someone rich enough is going to bite.

Who doesn't like a good story? Especially when it's a juicy bit of gossip about an author, a former celebrity, a famous photographer, or the man who founded Random House. Well, it looks like luxury property owners and their brokers have noticed, and according to the Daily News, they are doing some homework and learning about "the fascinating — and sometimes salacious — histories of their listings in an effort to catch attention in a competitive market." Brokers told the Daily News that while "factoids [about who's lived there or filmed a well-known movie there] didn't make the properties any more attractive to live in, but they increased attention to the listings, differentiating them from other buildings of the same ilk." And brokers aren't targeting only the starstruck, either. There's some fodder, too, for literati who still make it a point of walking along 44th Street to catch a glimpse of the bronze plaque in the front of the Algonquin Hotel bearing the names of its Round Table elite, which includes writer, wit, and satirist Dorothy Parker. Take, for example, the "140-year-old brownstone at 132 E. 62nd St. with a rich literary history. It turns out that Random House co-founder Bennett Cerf and his wife, actress turned "Dr. Seuss" editor Phyllis Fraser Cerf, bought the property from the Barnes family — of Barnes & Noble fame — for just $20,000 in 1941. After that, the couple hosted a who's who of New York scholars and celebrities, including William Faulkner [and] Truman Capote." Depending on the history, not to mention the tastes of potential buyers, this could make selling a learning experience on both sides. It's nice to get to really know the city. But of course, the technique will hardly be compelling if we're talking about someone who dated the assistant of some photographer who ended up marrying a person who wrote some self-help books a decade ago. 

The weather is warmer and the street corners are mostly clear of Olympic-size slush pools that made walking around a major drag. Spotted near north Yonkers this week was a small crowd of people around the telltale open house sign. It has begun. And once spring is underway, reports DNAinfo, "buyers should brace for crowded open houses." StreetEasy compiled stats for DNAinfo that found, not surprisingly, that things get quietest in the winter months. Who wants to go out in weather like we had? And, from the seller's point of view, who wants a bunch of people trudging around their apartments in wet snow boots? So if you're looking and you've been underwhelmed by the options, take heart. More people will be putting their homes on the market as the weather improves and spring promises to be a busy season indeed. 

Nearly two months ago, we gave co-op and condo boards a heads up about a public hearing on the proposal to lift the ban on ferrets in New York City before the Board of Health. Had the ban been lifted, board would have had to review their existing pet policies and revise them as needed to reflect where they stand on the great ferret debate. Clear language is everything. But it looks like that won't be necessary, according to Brickunderground.com, which has been on ferret watch "since last summer, when Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration indicated that they'd be up for nixing his predecessor Rudolph Giuliani's ban, enacted in 1999, on these little critters." The Associated Press delivered the bad news to ferret proponents: The Board of Health has said no way. Although "the proposal to nix the ferret ban would have required the animals to be vaccinated for rabies, sterilized and restrained when outdoors," some health board members are still digging their heels and pointing to cases "elsewhere" in which ferrets have bitten children. "I have to say that, at this point, I'm not at all convinced that it wouldn't be a substantial health risk to allow ferret ownership in New York City," board member Dr. Lynn Richardson is quoted as saying.

When a resident with a disability requests a "reasonable accommodation," the board has many issues to consider. It has to decide how it should respond, whether cost is an appropriate consideration, what it will communicate to other residents who feel strongly one way or the other, and what it can do to avoid litigation or the involvement of a government agency. It is critical that condo and co-op boards be aware of their legal obligations in responding to these types of requests. 

Steven Vernon, board president of the 111-unit Nagle Apartments in upper Manhattan, says it's hard, sometimes, to make a decision about a potential buyer when you can't ask certain questions. "We've had difficulties with the personal questionnaire in telling how good a neighbor a person will be," he says. "It's [helpful] to ask if someone plays a musical instrument, for example. One applicant was a professional piano player and practiced eight hours a day."

But what can you do? You can't ask if someone is a professional musician, since lawful occupation is — like age, gender, and race — one of the "protected classes" under the New York City Human Rights Law. 

One of the many nice things of making the transition from renter to shareholder is that you can renovate your apartment to suit your needs. Well, provided you follow the building rules, as established by the board or management company. And provided you get board approval, confirm whether you need an alteration agreement, and obtain any requisite city permits. Hey, nothing worth having comes easy, right? Say you want to renovate your co-op, and want to take out a radiator in the living room to free up wall space. We typically hear of New Yorkers complaining about no heat in winter, but there are many who understand the sweltering hell their apartments can turn into, especially in older buildings. This is the case for one co-op shareholder, who writes to Brickunderground.com in this week's Ask an Expert: "How would I go about [getting rid of the radiator]? Would it affect the property values?" One of Brickunderground's experts offers sound advice: "If it's not too late, include the radiator removal as part of the renovation proposal you submit to the co-op board. Indeed, your building's alteration guidelines may specifically address radiators, and the board may have addressed a similar issue in the past." If you get the board's blessing, don't throw the radiator away. Keep it on hand in case "you or a future buyer wants it reinstalled," and make sure a licensed and insured plumber removes the radiator and caps the pipe. 

Who has the right to use ancillary rooms directly outside the service door of a specific apartment? The answer should be simple, but it rarely is. In Green v. Board of Directors of 880 Fifth Avenue Corporation and Francis L. Mitterhoff, the parties were faced with the classic question of whether the offering plan or historic use prevails.

The property at 880 Fifth Avenue was converted to cooperative ownership in 1947. Ronald Green purchased the shares allocated to Apartment 17E in 2001. Apartment 17F was owned first by Irving Schneider (since 1970) and then, in 2011, by defendant Francis Mitterhoff. There were two rooms that were located just outside the service entrance of 17E and had "17E" written on the doors. They were, at least initially, intended to be used as a maid's room and bathroom for 17E. When he purchased the shares for 17E, Green was told that those two rooms had been, at some point, transferred to Schneider.

Who has the right to use ancillary rooms directly outside the service door of a specific apartment? The answer should be simple, but it rarely is. In Green v. Board of Directors of 880 Fifth Avenue Corporation and Francis L. Mitterhoff, the parties were faced with the classic question of whether the offering plan or historic use prevails.

The property at 880 Fifth Avenue was converted to cooperative ownership in 1947. Ronald Green purchased the shares allocated to Apartment 17E in 2001. Apartment 17F was owned first by Irving Schneider (since 1970) and then, in 2011, by defendant Francis Mitterhoff. There were two rooms that were located just outside the service entrance of 17E and had "17E" written on the doors. They were, at least initially, intended to be used as a maid's room and bathroom for 17E. When he purchased the shares for 17E, Green was told that those two rooms had been, at some point, transferred to Schneider.

Who has the right to use ancillary rooms directly outside the service door of a specific apartment? The answer should be simple, but it rarely is. In Green v. Board of Directors of 880 Fifth Avenue Corporation and Francis L. Mitterhoff, the parties were faced with the classic question of whether the offering plan or historic use prevails.

The property at 880 Fifth Avenue was converted to cooperative ownership in 1947. Ronald Green purchased the shares allocated to Apartment 17E in 2001. Apartment 17F was owned first by Irving Schneider (since 1970) and then, in 2011, by defendant Francis Mitterhoff. There were two rooms that were located just outside the service entrance of 17E and had "17E" written on the doors. They were, at least initially, intended to be used as a maid's room and bathroom for 17E. When he purchased the shares for 17E, Green was told that those two rooms had been, at some point, transferred to Schneider.