315 east 70 street

Paola66,
This coop is being very specific with you as this does not seem to be your primary residence.
In other words, If you think you can lend or rent your coop to others....you can not.
As a foreign investor you might think that it's ok to let you college bound daughter stay at the place during her semester in New York. Not without your presence.

Manhattan coops have very idiosyncratic rules, best you know before you begin.

This is interesting.. if the Proprietary Lease and both the Sublet Policy don't mention any different policy between a resident and no resident. Presumably the lawyer didn't see an issue as the buyer signed the purchase contract.

Does the buyer have 'any' recourse, ie. suing for having his time wasted/wasted opportunities? Shouldn't the official docs (Proprietary Lease and both the Sublet Policy) specifically spell out the rules?

whats the issue, the guy didnt pass the board.

"according" to the poster, official documents suggested renting out would not be an issue. Co-op emailed a note "just before" closing to say renting is not allowed.

Now, this could all be caused by 'poor english/communication between him and the lawyer and the broker"...

coop rentals - usually you have to RESIDE in the apartment for some period before being allowed to sublet for some period. Sounds right to me. If the guy isnt going to live there for some period, the why should he be allowed to sublet for some period?

seems his lawyer was shit--if he in a non-resident for whom these details matter, his lawyer should have immediately yellow-lighted him, and gotten specific info on the buyer's intended use of apt, and inquired specifically re that

the things that seem to bother this buyer are things that would be a problem for him in most estableshed co-ops--lawyer should have put this front and center when initially discussing purchase with buyer

The seller's broker told me that she asked to the coop and sublet was permitted without any difference between a resident and a no resident.
Also the seller gave me a positive feedback, but now i am not more sure that she was in good faith, because probably she had a big need to' sale.
Furthermore after my renounce she has tryed not to give me back my money, so probably she wanted to' make business in illegal way keeping my first 10%.
In Italy, which is my country, what is written in the contracts, as in this case proprietary lease and sublet policy, is the only thing that has value , therefore i believed to be garanteed by the reference documents.
The last thing: i think that it is more important to put attention to the financial stability of locator rather than if the owner has lived for some years in that flat.

I would say that you were rejected by the board, by not accepting their additional terms.

You should be able to get your money back.

But, I am no lawyer.

You have a lawyer, right?

It's not unusual for co-ops to have these kinds of rental regulations that draw a distinction between the rights of residents and nonresidents.

So the question is whether you were properly informed about them -- because it seems as though, had you known, you never would have tried to purchase in the first place.

**

I can't tell, being on the outside, whether the fault is with the building, or with your broker.

So first check in one specific place. Terms like this are generally written into the "House Rules"... and as part of the application to purchase, you would have had to read a copy of the rules, and sign an statement saying that you had done so.

If these terms weren't in the House Rules, and they weren't in the Sublet Policy, then I would consult an attorney.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

There was not written nothing about the difference between no resident and resident in the house rules.
Although my attorney told me I was right 100%, I was obliged to leave some money to' the seller (this was a real fraud) in this way I could close the discussion with them and to' have almost all my money back. A very sad adventure!

You seem blind-sided by things that are common in NYC coops but can be difficult to look out for by people who are not from NYC since the structure of NYC coops is fairly unique to this city. Ali, of course, if absolutely correct that the House Rules would likely have set out these policies. So while reviewing the proprietary lease and contract, any decent attorney would have asked to review the house rules before letting you sign the contract. That same attorney should have reviewed the house rules with you since many of the provisions apparently applied to non-residents which the attorney knew would apply to you. Frankly, these things really should have been easily discoverable before you entered into the contract so I can understand why the seller was upset. It is pretty much NYC real estate 101 that NOTHING a broker says to you should be relied upon--EVERYTHING must be verified in WRITING. If it isn't in writing, it isn't worth anything.

Generally, a non-resident owner who intends to lend out the apartment to family or friends is not a good candidate for 95%+ of Manhattan coops. These are buyers for whom condominiums are a much better fit.

I am sorry for what clearly sounds like a very frustrating experience for you. If you decide to try again, you will be in a much better position since you have more education about what to ask and what to require in writing before you sign anything again. Good luck. I hope you find what you are seeking.

"Blind-sided" sounds right, but KW ...

from the OP's point of view, this is a last-minute revelation of policies that would NOT have been discoverable by an atty, even a really good one, because they weren't written down. Who would read a building's sublet policy and house rules and then say, "but I'm not going to be able to operate under those, right, because my situation is different?"

I am always very hesitant to comment on specific situations where I don't know the whole story, but as it is being told, my sympathies are with the purchaser here.

ali

This deserve repeating.

"NYC real estate 101 that NOTHING a broker says to you should be relied upon--EVERYTHING must be verified in WRITING."

I am amazed to find coops that make distinctions between citzens and non-citizens (living abroad).
Is that exactly what is ment here between resident and non-resident?
I have never heard of a coop making such a distinction wrt habitation of guests based the passport of the coop owner.
Has anyone EVER heard of such a distinction in ANY coop agreement?
Kinda sounds like bullsh*t.....

A few points:

1. It is unclear what sort of discussion the OP had with his broker prior to the offer. Did the broker know how the OP intended to use the apartment? If so, he should have gotten some kind of indication from the Board if it was consistent with the rules before going ahead with an offer.

2. There is an important distinction between having visitors stay with you and allowing visitors to use the apartment when you are not there. That is the difference between resident and non-resident.

3. Was everyone on the same page as to the definition of sublet? The OP may not have considered his plan to fall under the subletting rules, but the Board may have disagreed (see point #1). I know of Boards that do not consider renting out a room to be a sublet, but I would consider it to be one.

4. I live in a coop that asks if an applicant has diplomatic status. That's not the same as citizen vs. non-citizen, but it's related.

diplomatic status

yes. they don't pay parking tickets

verbiage from brokers is such that i don't even listen, let alone consider anything said seriously

i listen carefully to my very good lawyer, who, like i said, would have immediately yellow-lighted this deal, based on his knowledge of coop rules generally, and his knowledge that the buyer intended use that would not comply with policies in most established NYC coops--any decent lawyer would have sought documentation that all potential desired uses by said non-resident buyer would be ok with coop, PRIOR to signing and putting up of deposit--lawyer is a dope---so is anyone who thinks anything said by any broker or party to deals has any value--case in point: comments by brokers here