Acris price

It could be a non-arms-length transfer. E.g., from wife and husband as JTWRS to tenants-in-common, or vice-versa, or to husband and wife as trustees, or some other kind of no-consideration transfer.

If it's pre-2004, ACRIS doesn't record all prices. If a condo, you can use the NYSRE Tax amount, .4% of the price, to calculate.

Thanks NWT. It's actually a coop bought in 2002, any other way I can find out the price?

No data at all for a co-op before 2004. There's an extremely small chance that the sale was reported in the NYT's "Recent Sales" table, so you could check their archive for the address. Something interesting might turn up anyway.

Why doesn't SE pick up all the saled in ACRIS?

I'm pretty sure SE has all the arms-length sales that can be linked by address and apt number.

NWT: I've noticed some odd gaps among the properties I monitor. Recent examples include 255 West 84th #12A (Doc_ID=2009031001038001) and 333 CPW #33 (Doc_ID=2009022700830001). Both were significant, arms-length transactions. Both appear in ACRIS. Neither has shown up on SE yet. Maybe the site admins can explain.

It is odd. Just comparing the 255W84 with the $485K one from last year, I don't see anything in the data that'd make one match but not the other. But then I'm making probably-unwarranted assumptions about the data-transfer process. Hard to imagine SE making the matches manually, but maybe they are and just missed those.

The 255 West 84th problem might be on the ACRIS side, at least in part. If you search for that address in ACRIS, the system prompts you to enter an apartment number because it thinks the building is a condo. If you enter an apartment number, the property isn't found because the building is really a coop and the units aren't separate tax lots. On the other hand, I don't see anything unusual about 333 CPW.

The tinfoil-hatter in me figures those sales have been suppressed because they were serious downers.

Come to think of it, I've seen some other anomalous stuff when the building is a cond-op. Doesn't explain why some apts in the co-op unit would be caught but not others. Maybe they kick out and have to be reconciled later, or something.

"Come to think of it, I've seen some other anomalous stuff when the building is a cond-op. "

What you'll find is that in a lot of Cond-ops units get recorded under a number of different lot numbers. I don't know why except the laziness of some of the people who write up the docs.