I knew this business was sleazy but this is nuts

how did you discover this? what documents supported the original contention, and what facts are now conflicting with this?

I think there was a thread here on SE about this very thing. I hope it's the same apartment.

I recently caught a mistake for a friend broker of mine where nobody in his office new the same thing.
I by accident checking out the building looked at the condo declaration and noticed the discrepency. They didn't believe me until I forwarded a copy of the page from acris. The broker didn't know, the developer didn't know, the developer's attorney didn't know (how is that possible?)

What does it say in the condo declaration?

The lease says that the owner has full use of terrace, but at the intv with the Board, it was discovered that the building treats the vast majority of the deck as a common roof deck. The listing information gives sq footage for a private roof deck that include the common roof deck. There was nothing in the diligence material about the common roof deck. crazy, right?

Alanhart- which building are you referring to?

I don't even know what search words I'd use to find the thread. Maybe someone else remembers. I think besides the discrepancy in private vs. common deck, there was a matter of the common users being able to look right into the apartment.

what does your lawyer say? I would think that the lease trumps what the board says, but i don't know. not to mention that even if you 'win', you'd have a bunch of po'd neighbors and a board that would likely make future renovations, etc. difficult for you.

but i would think that if you signed a contract based on the lease, and then that lease was inaccurate, you could back out and get your deposit back. but i'm not a lawyer - this is why you pay them.

alanhart-yes! That's exactly right! I'll do a search for the address and see if it comes up. And printer, yes, one would think.

good luck with this - it sucks to be so far invested in the process only to have the rug pulled out from under you.

noway, please keep us posted on what you find out.

Sorry, Im a bit confused here, Im reading seller, broker, then lease.
Are we talking about a coop? A rental? A purchase?

If it's a coop, and either or, I would have to agree with Printer (who thought we'd agree on something today? :) ) The lease would have to trump what the board says because the board would likely have approved the lease, whether a rental or sale.

If it's a condo, it's whatever the condo declaration says, (in the absense of any ammendments)

Im not a lawyer, and that is who you should be asking eventually.

OK. I assume this apt will be back on the market after this. I'll let you know what happens. I'm just happy we found out before closing.

truthsker. It's a coop.

And now rereading, the error was caught before a board approval, that sucks.
Your beef, or fight is with the broker and seller. Renegotiate if you still want it less what you valued the private outdoor space at.
If you don't come to a deal , c'est la vie. If they put it back on the market afterwards with the same false claims,then the sue the broker and seller for your expenses on the failed deal.

Did you find the thread I was referring to? Is it the same place?

I didn't find the thread. Do you happen to remember what neighborhood it was in?

Not sure, but for some reason Chinatown/Bowery comes to mind. But I'm probably wrong about that.

forget, marge. It's chinatown...

actually, it's not chinatown. just couldn't resist the reference. meant to say 'forget it, marge.'

465 Grand Street? 475 Grand Street? 485 Grand Street? I remember reading about a condo there with "private" roof space that was visible from other units and/or not actually private at all. The unit sold for $1,745,000 I believe. Listed by Core Group. Remember price, but not address. Weird!

Yes: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/13664-sale-at-345-grand-street-6

Nope. That's not it. This one was billed as private and would be if it were not for the fact that the 'private' roof deck is actually the building roof deck. You can sue the broker for this sort of bald-faced lie, I'm sure.

And fyi, the broker is at one of the big firms, not at core or something like that.