This new rule was put into place by a very controlling Board. Is this legal? Has anyone heard of this in any other buildings? Monday, March 22, 2010 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS To: All Homeowners/Residents From: The Board of Managers/Cooper Square Realty, Inc. Re: Resolution of the Board of Managers Date: March 22, 2010 Dear Residents: The Board of Managers of the 310 West 52nd Street... [more]
This new rule was put into place by a very controlling Board. Is this legal? Has anyone heard of this in any other buildings?
Monday, March 22, 2010
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS
To: All Homeowners/Residents
From: The Board of Managers/Cooper Square Realty, Inc.
Re: Resolution of the Board of Managers
Date: March 22, 2010
Dear Residents:
The Board of Managers of the 310 West 52nd Street Condominium, in their effort to protect the residents and its employees from abusive behavior from other residents has approved the attached Resolution.
In summary, the Resolution provides that the Board has the authority to impose $500.00 fines for each instance of a reported occurrence of any verbal abuse, or otherwise harassing behavior by a Unit Owner, tenant, or occupant of the Condominium towards any fellow Unit Owner, tenant or occupant or to any of the Condominium's staff and/or other employees.
In addition, this Resolution provides that the Board has the authority to revoke the use of the concierge and other non-emergency staff related services for a period of time if a Unit Owner, tenant or occupant fails or refuses to treat the building staff and other employees in a respectful and professional manner.
The Board does not take the issue of abusive behavior toward the residents and employees lightly and will do everything within its power to insure the safety and security of the residents and employees of the 310 West 52nd Street Condominium.
[less]
Response by dwell
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2341
Member since: Jul 2008
David,
oy, klusterf*ck of a situation. You really have my sympathies.
But, can share this with ya: re: HVAC in rear yard, NYC bld code requires that the compressor be ?? feet from property line (I forget how many feet), so, it may be "illegal" to install the compressor in yr yard, even IF you wanted to do it (which you do not), unless you put it in the middle of yr yard. Check this out with your expeditor, it's in the Building Code.
Also, in case you even care, check out to see if there are new, smaller HVAC compressors on the market, esply Mitsubishi. Perhaps contact an HVAC contractor, but, I'm sure you know all this.
Unless there's some agreement (or law?) to the contrary, I don't see how they can force you to put an HVAC compressor in your yard, rite? The roof owners got rites & so do you. Oy, poor you.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by dwell
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2341
Member since: Jul 2008
David,
Ever thought of just selling your unit to the commercial T, get a release & be done with these idiots?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Truth
over 15 years ago
Posts: 5641
Member since: Dec 2009
Lazycomm: What does this have to do with aboutready? I don't even see an aboutready comment on this string.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 15 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
re; HVAC
a) That was my point: Coop atty acknowledges backyard belongs to me and should be treated like others, but Sponsor claims he owns it (that's the real brunt of the current litigation), but Board ignores their own atty's advice because they are more interested in spiting me, so they side with Sponsor against shareholder. Also, other minutes show the Board and Sponsor "in cahoots" with Sponsor offering to help with any litigation to drive me out of building. Wife told same shareholder as above that the reason they wouldn't settle was that they didn't want to "let me out of the lawsuit". (see note below).
b) re: legality of placement: the Sponsor constructed extensions illegally 30 years ago. When he was told to get them legalized, he came up with what is now 5 different stories as to when they were built, who built them, etc. The Arbitrator's Award ruled that the premises had to be in compliance with the PA Permit and other laws, etc, be up to code, etc. BEFORE it could open. It's been open since April 2009 and there are still variances from the PA (like they have 120 seat capacity on the PA but like 140 seats in the place, including in a new illegally built extension). My point? Both the Board and the Sponsor are so set at spiting me that the Board will allow anything, whether legal or not. In fact, one of their items in the Pullman Letter they sent me was that as Board President, I had called the Buildings Dept and got the illegal extensions cited. And when they let the commercial tenant of the hook by agreeing to pay the fines when it is clear from the Lease he is responsible for them. but hey, they forced the law suit (see above) and even though they told this shareholder that the sponsor was going to cover their legal fees, they wrote emails to the shareholders saying "due to his lawsuit, DG has cost the Coop another $15,000 - the deductible from the insurance company". BTW, one of the board members used this who;e thing as a tactic to get the restaurant subtenant to build a roof deck for him at their expense, even though he and every other shareholder who has purchased that unit since I've been in the building (16 years) that the center of their roof was reserved for future placement of the restaurant HVAC units (and several building engineers over the last dozen years have ALL said the HVAC. units belonged there. PS in this case, the placement in my backyard would have essentially been 0 feet from the lot line.
note: the husband/wife team bought their unit for $1,037,000 in 1999. It's been on the market about as much as it' has been off the market since that time (on/off... on/off). they were in contract in the Summer of 2008 for $3,500,000, and included a representation to the Buyers that there was no major litigation going on in the Coop. They could have simply agreed to settle and been out the door. But instead, they were so much more interested in spiting me than looking out for their own interests, they lost their deal when the Buyers backed out. Now, given all that they have done to ruin the building, I don't know if it is sellable at all, and if it is, whether they will get more than $2,000,000. All in all, they were so interested in spiting me and driving me out of my home that they might just have cost themselves $2,000,000.
re: buyout
he has never negotiated in good faith with anyone in his life. He is one of those old-line rent stabilized landlords who, as an attorney turned RE investor friend put it: "can't get out of the basement". Last time it came up, he offered me 20% of market value. Note I didn't say 20% OFF market value, I said 20% OF market value.
his most recent settlement offer was:
" to settle for (a) the terrace being built over the existing structure, (b) you get whatever money the tenant agrees to pay you, and (c) Shep pays nothing and makes no guarantee that future tenants will get the same deal, and you (d) give up your right to the rear yard"
BTW 115560/08 NY State Supreme if you are interested.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by dwell
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2341
Member since: Jul 2008
David,
I'm speechless. It's so uberly bizarre, so Dickensian, add some (more) Mamet & Sex in the City & you have a winning screenplay. Wishing you all the best.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by hfscomm1
over 15 years ago
Posts: 1590
Member since: Oct 2009
Truth
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Lazycomm: What does this have to do with aboutready? I don't even see an aboutready comment on this string.
Oh stop your whining. Nobody likes a whiner.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by scorlee2426
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2
Member since: Nov 2008
"No offense to MAs, but, some MAs are really stupid. And, that is very unfortunate because, in NYC, MAs are a necessity of life & many of them suck."
Dwell...Im an MA...and I dont suck. there are some good ones out there too.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 15 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
Good thing this isn't one of those anonymous sex sites.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 15 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
"But, can share this with ya: re: HVAC in rear yard, NYC bld code requires that the compressor be ?? feet from property line (I forget how many feet), so, it may be "illegal" to install the compressor in yr yard, even IF you wanted to do it (which you do not), unless you put it in the middle of yr yard. Check this out with your expeditor, it's in the Building Code."
Took a quick look and couldn't find any cit on this, you have one?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Truth
over 15 years ago
Posts: 5641
Member since: Dec 2009
Just say no: to legal malpractice. S&C are no longer in partnership. KAPUT!!!
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
David,
oy, klusterf*ck of a situation. You really have my sympathies.
But, can share this with ya: re: HVAC in rear yard, NYC bld code requires that the compressor be ?? feet from property line (I forget how many feet), so, it may be "illegal" to install the compressor in yr yard, even IF you wanted to do it (which you do not), unless you put it in the middle of yr yard. Check this out with your expeditor, it's in the Building Code.
Also, in case you even care, check out to see if there are new, smaller HVAC compressors on the market, esply Mitsubishi. Perhaps contact an HVAC contractor, but, I'm sure you know all this.
Unless there's some agreement (or law?) to the contrary, I don't see how they can force you to put an HVAC compressor in your yard, rite? The roof owners got rites & so do you. Oy, poor you.
David,
Ever thought of just selling your unit to the commercial T, get a release & be done with these idiots?
Lazycomm: What does this have to do with aboutready? I don't even see an aboutready comment on this string.
re; HVAC
a) That was my point: Coop atty acknowledges backyard belongs to me and should be treated like others, but Sponsor claims he owns it (that's the real brunt of the current litigation), but Board ignores their own atty's advice because they are more interested in spiting me, so they side with Sponsor against shareholder. Also, other minutes show the Board and Sponsor "in cahoots" with Sponsor offering to help with any litigation to drive me out of building. Wife told same shareholder as above that the reason they wouldn't settle was that they didn't want to "let me out of the lawsuit". (see note below).
b) re: legality of placement: the Sponsor constructed extensions illegally 30 years ago. When he was told to get them legalized, he came up with what is now 5 different stories as to when they were built, who built them, etc. The Arbitrator's Award ruled that the premises had to be in compliance with the PA Permit and other laws, etc, be up to code, etc. BEFORE it could open. It's been open since April 2009 and there are still variances from the PA (like they have 120 seat capacity on the PA but like 140 seats in the place, including in a new illegally built extension). My point? Both the Board and the Sponsor are so set at spiting me that the Board will allow anything, whether legal or not. In fact, one of their items in the Pullman Letter they sent me was that as Board President, I had called the Buildings Dept and got the illegal extensions cited. And when they let the commercial tenant of the hook by agreeing to pay the fines when it is clear from the Lease he is responsible for them. but hey, they forced the law suit (see above) and even though they told this shareholder that the sponsor was going to cover their legal fees, they wrote emails to the shareholders saying "due to his lawsuit, DG has cost the Coop another $15,000 - the deductible from the insurance company". BTW, one of the board members used this who;e thing as a tactic to get the restaurant subtenant to build a roof deck for him at their expense, even though he and every other shareholder who has purchased that unit since I've been in the building (16 years) that the center of their roof was reserved for future placement of the restaurant HVAC units (and several building engineers over the last dozen years have ALL said the HVAC. units belonged there. PS in this case, the placement in my backyard would have essentially been 0 feet from the lot line.
note: the husband/wife team bought their unit for $1,037,000 in 1999. It's been on the market about as much as it' has been off the market since that time (on/off... on/off). they were in contract in the Summer of 2008 for $3,500,000, and included a representation to the Buyers that there was no major litigation going on in the Coop. They could have simply agreed to settle and been out the door. But instead, they were so much more interested in spiting me than looking out for their own interests, they lost their deal when the Buyers backed out. Now, given all that they have done to ruin the building, I don't know if it is sellable at all, and if it is, whether they will get more than $2,000,000. All in all, they were so interested in spiting me and driving me out of my home that they might just have cost themselves $2,000,000.
re: buyout
he has never negotiated in good faith with anyone in his life. He is one of those old-line rent stabilized landlords who, as an attorney turned RE investor friend put it: "can't get out of the basement". Last time it came up, he offered me 20% of market value. Note I didn't say 20% OFF market value, I said 20% OF market value.
his most recent settlement offer was:
" to settle for (a) the terrace being built over the existing structure, (b) you get whatever money the tenant agrees to pay you, and (c) Shep pays nothing and makes no guarantee that future tenants will get the same deal, and you (d) give up your right to the rear yard"
BTW 115560/08 NY State Supreme if you are interested.
David,
I'm speechless. It's so uberly bizarre, so Dickensian, add some (more) Mamet & Sex in the City & you have a winning screenplay. Wishing you all the best.
Truth
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Lazycomm: What does this have to do with aboutready? I don't even see an aboutready comment on this string.
Oh stop your whining. Nobody likes a whiner.
"No offense to MAs, but, some MAs are really stupid. And, that is very unfortunate because, in NYC, MAs are a necessity of life & many of them suck."
Dwell...Im an MA...and I dont suck. there are some good ones out there too.
Good thing this isn't one of those anonymous sex sites.
"But, can share this with ya: re: HVAC in rear yard, NYC bld code requires that the compressor be ?? feet from property line (I forget how many feet), so, it may be "illegal" to install the compressor in yr yard, even IF you wanted to do it (which you do not), unless you put it in the middle of yr yard. Check this out with your expeditor, it's in the Building Code."
Took a quick look and couldn't find any cit on this, you have one?
Just say no: to legal malpractice. S&C are no longer in partnership. KAPUT!!!