New York hand model sues apartment building for $10m

The board cancels the shareholder's proprietary lease, essentially forcing them to either hold onto shares in a building in which they cannot live (or sublet), or sell.

of course, the facts here are that she is suing the building because she claims she is being discriminated against because she married one of the building workers. no mention of the co-op trying to throw her out.

despite matt's ridiculous statement, getting someone out of a co-op other than for non payment is a protracted legal hassle.

"despite matt's ridiculous statement, getting someone out of a co-op other than for non payment is a protracted legal hassle."

There's nothing "ridiculous" about it. That's how it works.

so, mainematt, does the board have the right to do this unilaterally?

It depends on each building's bylaws. Many boards DO reserve this right, but other buildings require a majority vote of all shareholders.

with no requirement to notice? dream on, fool.

As a board member, I've been through this process.

Arguing with you about something you obviously know nothing about is getting tiresome.

Later.

so...the board meets, decides to throw out a shareholder because they feel like it; they call the sheriff and the shareholder is in the street the following week? you continue to outdo yourself. its hard to believe that you believe the nonsense that you spout.

columbia, you're wrong here. There's plenty in the news about this case (google it), and the building sued first — to evict her. It's been done many a time. Actually, non-payment is never the cause. In case of non-payment, a shareholder's shares are not cancelled but the apartment is taken over by the building and sold.
Canceling shares is different and happens in case of extreme nuisance and abuse.
In other articles, she claims that the building prevents her from selling. Weird.

according to the article in the daily news, she claims that the super or the super's wife attacked her (which by the way is hilarious); no mention there of an attempt to evict her.

but, either way, that supports the thought that legal process is required to get a shareholder out--the more famous case is the pullman ruling which i believe supported the co-ops right to cancel a shareholders proprietary lease following a vote of the shareholders. of course, that also involved significant and costly litigation.

mainematt makes it seem as though one day you wake up and discover you're out---that's patently incorrect.