sponsor ("holder of unsold shares) controlling the board & managing the building

Get him to speak at Columbia and have the president of the school introduce him.

"...a creepy guy who also owns 20% of the units and controls the board..."

You've just described about 75% of the Coops in NY.
Although there have been some newly proposed legislation in the past few years Coop leaseholders essentially have no government or private agency who will enforce their rights. And Coop landlords want to keep it that way.

Most of the large Coops in Ny were formed by huge landlords - their portfolios sometimes extending back several generations. These landlords exploited the Corporate Business Law in such a way that shareholders are virtually helpless when any sort of conflict come up.

These large Coops are still owned by the landlords who converted them. They converted to skirt the rent laws and sold only the required number of units to be legitimate and then they NEVER leave the building.

They usually form their own managing agency and have "planted" residents who serve on the board in perpetuity. These managing agencies and planted board members act in the interest of the landlord. The shareholder does not stand a chance in any sort of conflict.

There needs to be be more legislation proposed that protects the rights of shareholders and their most valuable and personal investment... their home.

Until Coop apartments are given the same protection as other forms of home ownership you will see more and more crisis situations arise as the Coop boom of the 80s matures and conflicts between shareholder and Coop landlords end in disaster for the shareholder.

The frightening thing for many Coop shareholders is that many injustices will probably go unnoticed for years before our legislators recognize the problem.

I thought there was a court decision a few years ago requiring coop sponsors to divest of unsold shares held an unreasonably long time, or causing board control issues, or something like that. Vaguely.

Funny, Will. Sorry if I was an ass.
Alanhart --- yes, there are efforts to rectify this situation and I think it's NOT quite as horrid as goldfish depicts it, but it's ALMOST that horrid. You will really know creepy slime-balls when you get into one of these situations. I'm trying to sell my way out of one right now.

This 2001 decision is what I was thinking of. I supposed it was overturned . . . ?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E7D81531F935A1575BC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Poorishlady... I see from a different posting that you decided not to move ahead with your sale because some 'newbie' buyers created a punch list that seemed to offend you. Is your creepy coop manager really that creepy or are you just a complainer?? Hmmmmmm....one wonders.

Goldfish...just what we don't need is more government in our lives...

Grunty --- I addressed most of the items on their punchlist, and they said OK, good to go. But then when it came to signing the contract, the items they'd said to forget about suddenly all came back! Then one by one they started crossing the items off the list as I got more annoyed with them, but I finally told them it wasn't going to work. It was just too much stress if I had to keep dealing with their complaints and demands all the way up to closing ---- especially because I also at the same time need to buy a new place and move, etc.
I'm not just a complainer. I'm using this board to vent some of my frustrations about the selling and buying process that I'm currently in ----- it's very stressful and also interesting. What's your position, Grunty? Broker? Seller? Buyer?