Co-op Sublease – Additional Roommate

"plan to have my fiance move in with me."
Most coops will require her to submit an application.

"Can the board prevent her from moving in?"
Yes. Multiple potential reasons, to which they don't have to specify.

"Is that basically discrimination due to marital status, is it against the law?"
Forgot my CE, but Google "NYC Fair housing laws".

"If they do not allow her to move in, should I be able to break my lease with landlord with no penalty?"
No. You signed a lease. If you had a rider clause stipulating this event and they agreed, then yes (but I doubt a coop would have done so).

Good Luck.

"Can the board prevent her from moving in?"

Yes.

***

"Is that basically discrimination due to marital status, is it against the law?"

You're not married.

Your fiance isn't your wife.

She'd be considered a roommate. See http://metcouncilonhousing.org/help_and_answers/your_right_to_have_a_roommate

Move her in, and inform your landlord and the co-op within 30 days.

Sorry, but co-ops are exempt from the "roommate" provision of the "Real Property Law".

NYCMatt, could you please point to where this provision exists?

(I meant, the provision where co-ops are exempt, if I was unclear).

Ok thanks. So if I did a quickie courthouse wedding, then it becomes discrimination based on marital status if they say no? Or are co-ops are all supreme, a law unto themselves?

Well, it's been well over 24 hours, and still no comment from "NYCMatt." And it's not like he hasn't visited the board, as we see from his more recent comments here:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/36198-appliance-placement-in-galley-kitchen

So, why hasn't NYCMatt responded? Well, for the same reason that I already knew BEFORE I asked where he got his statement of: "but co-ops are exempt from the "roommate" provision of the "Real Property Law"." Because, like so much of the time, he's dead wrong. As such, he wasn't able to find such a provision.

In fact, lots of misinformation here, from both vslse65 and NYCMatt.

@condo_coop_renter-
A co-op CANNOT require her to submit an application (although they can ask for one).
A co-op CANNOT prevent her from moving in.
It's actually against the law for a co-op board to prevent her entering/residing.

She would be considered a roommate, and you are free to have her live with you for as long as you want.

For "NYCMatt's" reference:

http://www.coophousing.org/DisplayPage.aspx?id=128
"You should also know that NYC has a roommate law, which also includes co-operatives. Under
the roommate law a named lease holder can have a roommate without interference of the
co-operative."

http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub237.pdf
"The law has been held applicable to a cooperative housing corporation"

So sorry, "NYCMatt," but a co-op may want to create out of the blue any little "rule" or "by-law" or lease "provision" that it wants to dream up, but it does not trump state law. For example, if a co-op wants to put in their proprietary lease that a tenant must kill someone once passing the board interview, it doesn't mean that it's that it's not illegal.

condo_coop_renter,
the "Roomate Law" (RPL 235-f) applies everywhere, and any responsible, informed, and educated (non-sleazy) co-op board and president will know this. Watch out for the ones who don't -- most likely, they are shady, power-hungry, unfair, and run their buildings like shit. You are totally safe bringing in your fiance.

[Prediction: retreating into a corner, we don't hear from "NYCMatt" again about this here]

Sonya,

I always admit when I'm wrong about something and will do so if I'm wrong here.

But in the link you provided (NAHC - not gov't btw) it states that one "can" have a roommate, not "must be allowed no matter what". It's illegal to have language that says "disallow" roommates on a lease, so yes, roommates are allowed. However, that's not the issue here and OP didn't ask that.

What if a background check on a potential roommate shows that they're a convicted felon? Coops (or even condos) "must" allow this person to move in? I doubt it (again, I could be wrong).

Official NYC RGB link:
http://www.housingnyc.com/html/guide/basics.html#Roommates

I'd love to hear from an attorney.

And yes, I did check RPL 235-f, it's silent on my example (and there could be others obviously), so I really would like to hear from an attorney. But thanks for raising this issue, I'm curious now.

So sorry, Sonia, but based on MY OWN EXPERIENCE, co-ops *can* require roommates to submit board packages for review and possible rejection.

We've done it. It was disputed. We won.

Links aren't everything, m'dear.

Matt wrong again. Surprise surprise. He's correct what, like 5% of the time? And vsl another one posting blantently incorrect information. Yeeesh.

vslse65,
Consult an attorney all you want. If you're lucky, you'll get a hack/sleaze (like obviously the ones NYCMatt has dealt with), and not be able to read basic law.

NYCMatt,
So sorry, your "own experience" don't mean shit. In fact, I call bullshit. Let's see some court cases (public record) from your building in which you won most likely (because they had a hack attorney). Come on, NWT posts such things all the time. And genius, those "links" are to the law -- so you think laws "aren't anything"?? LOL

@condo_coop_renter-
Only the sleaziest of co-ops would dispute a well-known law that applies everywhere to exercise their power-hungry egos. Be aware.

Keep it coming, "NYCMatt"...

Sonya and West34 - are you both attorneys?

Like I said, if I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

If you have case law that supports "anyone" including convicted pedophiles, murderers, etc...must be allowed as a roommate without exception, then fine. I can tell you in our properties, we would definitely reject the app. Go to court if we must, but I doubt the spirit of the roommate law was intended for all situations.

Again, I could be wrong but someone show me proof.

Um, when did this discussion become about criminals?? The question, and in reference this law, applies to PROPERTIES, not people. (Remember?? NYCMatt said "co-ops are exempt" ...not murderers, or any other PERSON is exempt). Aside, this law has nothing to do with any application at all.

Honestly, you should really READ this law before you start talking about it.

Matt can claim any nonsense he wants about his bougie coop way up north (just think Matt, when you get Citibike there it'll only be a 2 hour pedal to Chelsea!) The fact is the law says you can have ANY ONE NON-IMMEDIATE FAMILY ROOMMATE YOU WANT but you're required to notify the "landlord" within 30 days.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RPP/7/235-f

So I guess neither of you are attorneys.

Not reading? You both should read the OP's questions then re-read my answers before accusing me of false info.
Second, I'm not referring to anything NYCMatt said (I don't read grayed out comments anyway).

Would love an attorney's input as I'm still curious about any exceptions to the roommate law.

It seems like claiming discrimination if you don't get what you want, right out of the gate, is pretty aggressive. Why not just politely ask your landlord if he/she is okay (and the board is okay) with the fiancee moving in? If it's met with resistance, you can politely ask if you could move out early under terms that are agreeable to everyone.

I have no idea if it's legal or not to plant another person in the apartment without approval, but you're living in another person's home. Even if the law will allow you to do it and even if the law will make it difficult to evict, you're putting this shareholders relationship with their board at risk if you simply move someone in without going through the proper channels. Why would you want to do that? You wouldn't want to be treated that way. You were approved for this unit under the conditions you presented upon signing the lease and passing the board and now you want to change the terms. Rather than preparing for a battle, find a way to go about requesting the additional tenant in a respectful and responsible way. Your chances of getting what you want would be so much better. And if the board can't legally disallow a roommate, they will be aware of that law and will act accordingly. At worst, they'll just want another information packet so they know who is living in their building.

vsl: so if you're not a plumber you can't use a wrench?

unsure: because NY State law says you don't have to ask permission. As far as "living in another person's home", when you sign that lease it's now your home and in this state you have something called tenant's rights.

So to directly answer the OP:
Can the board prevent her from moving in? No, that's against the law.
Is that basically discrimination due to marital status, is it against the law? yes it's against the law, I posted the section that applies.
If they do not allow her to move in, should I be able to break my lease with landlord with no penalty? They cant not allow her to move it. That would be illegal.

unsure,
Excellent post, and exactly how it should before handled. Politeness and transparency is always the best way. However, it's helpful to know the facts, and false information ("co-ops are exempt"), is dangerous and irresponsible.

vslse65,
You have no idea if I'm an attorney or not. But if you can't read this:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RPP/7/235-f
then you don't need an attorney, you need an English teacher. It's really not that complicated, at ALL.

As for the OP, he asked if his fiance could move in, if she would be allowed. The simple answer to this is YES. It's not complicated and it happens all the time. If you wish to find little obscure exceptions to this law, then yes, hire an attorney of your own and knock yourself out. This ORIGINAL question, however, is not one of those obscure exceptions. Its common and in black and white.

"vsl: so if you're not a plumber you can't use a wrench?"

Of course you can, but you're still not a plumber.

Look, I'm not looking to argue here, but the OP didn't provide enough details to give an absolute answer. The statute is clear, I agree, but I'd be shocked if there are no exceptions. As I said, I've been wrong before and will be again - like all of us.

Sonya - why so hostile? In my experience, even the most B&W laws have grey areas. But, that's enough...as I said, I'm not looking to argue here. Have a nice day.

the roommate law i believe protects share holders not sub-tenants. if i am correct, that makes matt correct and west34 and sonya incorrect.

Thanks for the comments. Responding to an earlier post, I have no desire for battle, just want to know what my rights and options are should things not work out through regular channels.

vslse65,
Thanks, you seem very understanding.... And I didn't mean to be hostile, we're all friends here :-) fact of the matter is, even though gray areas do exist in places, the original question was very cut and dry -- moreso than most. With the scenario posted, the co-op cannot override the law.

Jim, you are incorrect.

i am fairly certain that i am not. your lack of sophistication on the subject stems from your not understanding some very simple things (probably never having seen a co-op sublease agreement). sub-tenants do not have the same rights as tenants. tenants being the people who actually own the apartment.

You are asserting something. Put up or shut up. I've already provided documentation to the law. Let's see your documentation that disproves that. Your "i am fairly certain" means shit.

Keep spouting...

actually, my "i'm fairly certain" has some merit. afterall, matt (who is a co-op board president?) and I both have far more experience with these matters. a subtenant in a co-op has less rights to the property. that is established. and co-op boards have a lot of latitude in enforcing rules. so, like the other intelligent people here who disagreed with you, it is based on experience. you basically just did a google search.

these are the "exceptions" that vslse65 was referring to.

" matt (who is a co-op board president?) and I both have far more experience with these matters."
Prove it. In doing so, you'd have to know me, and you don't. So feel free to prove -- and be careful: you "feeling" a certain way or saying "I have experience!!" doesn't prove a thing, except that you know how whine a lot

And yes, I pulled up the law online. That is a fact, on the books, as law, for everyone to see. as opposed to your "I have more experience!!" which no one knows (and all signs point to the contrary), and which you can whine about all you want, but it doesn't prove shit.

Keep trying.

Wow. Such an angry woman.

yes, there is the "roommate" law. i saw NOTHING there that address' subtenant rights, only tenant rights. did you? that is called "a grey area". Further, the law doesn't protect those renting in a condo.
therefore, the law you googled doesn't prove a thing in this particular scenario. THAT combined with my experience leads me to believe that I am right. because co-op boards would have a HUGE problem with this. not to mention the owner of the property. Now, if you can find somethign that address' the rights of SUBTENANTS than I might acquiesce.

you can find additional reading (and notice how the lawyers can't even agree) here cunt:

http://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/2013/2013-June/Featured-Articles/New-York-s-Roommate-Law#.UhJKXlGPUYQ

stupid, stupid girl. again, lack of experience in matters that are above your understanding have made you look very very dumb.

NYCMatt
4 minutes ago
Posts: 7072
Member since: May 2009
ignore this person
report abuse

Wow. Such an angry woman.

Matt, I don't agree with you much, but you are right about this, and the roommates in a co-op rule. clearly.

let us also not forget that, even if tenancy to this woman was granted (though it is clear at least that the legality of that is unclear) that the owner can elect not to renew the tenants lease. so effectively, can you move someone into an apartment through NY's roommates laws (though not a condo and maybe not a co-op)? Sure. And can your landlord increase your rent by $5000 or so upon renewal to get your ass out (if not rent stabilized)? can they also fail to give you a good reference for your next owner? yes, they can do that too.

Wow, you are really scrounging for scraps now, aren't you? A podcast? Seriously?? From two people who can't even come to a consensus? And THAT'S supposed to trump the information I provided?

Aside from ALL that, it's a completely different situation. Your link talks about a tenant who has moved OUT!
" We have a shareholder in our co-op who moved out," says Manhattan co-op board president Regina Warren"
Did you even read your own link? The OP here is having his fiance live WITH HIM. Section 235-f requires the roommates to living there as a primary residence. The PODCAST (lol) you linked has nothing to do with any kind of roommate situation. Wow, stupidity on a roll here.

NYCMatt,
On the contrary, this is actually fun... It's like talking to one of those people who thinks the earth is 6000 years old.

Keep trying.

two attorneys.

you still don't get it, and you are showing your stupidity. a shareholder in a co-op is the TENANT. the subtenant (which is what the OP is) is a subtenant. you really should just stop. you are making this worse for yourself.

my intent, in referencing a dialogue btw TWO ATTORNEYS was to show that at best, there is ambiguity when it relates to the particulars of this situation.

anyone else with any knowledge here will tell you just how ridiculously stupid you sound arguing the minutia of this.

is this not the very same situation described above?

June 11, 2013 — "We have a shareholder in our co-op who moved out," says Manhattan co-op board president Regina Warren says, "and the shareholder now has a subtenant living in his unit. The subtenant went through all the proper co-op application channels and signed an appropriate subtenant lease. Now the subtenant wants to bring in a non-related roommate. Can the board require this new person to apply just like the original subtenant?"

two attorneys.

you still don't get it, and you are showing your stupidity. a shareholder in a co-op is the TENANT. the subtenant (which is what the OP is) is a subtenant. you really should just stop. you are making this worse for yourself.

my intent, in referencing a dialogue btw TWO ATTORNEYS was to show that at best, there is ambiguity when it relates to the particulars of this situation.

anyone else with any knowledge here will tell you just how ridiculously stupid you sound arguing the minutia of this.

Isn't this not the very same situation being discussed by TWO NY ATTORNEYS that the OP describes:

BOARD OPERATIONS
New York City
From Our 'Legal Talk' Podcasts: Two Attorneys Explain the Roommate Law

June 11, 2013 — "We have a shareholder in our co-op who moved out," says Manhattan co-op board president Regina Warren says, "and the shareholder now has a subtenant living in his unit. The subtenant went through all the proper co-op application channels and signed an appropriate subtenant lease. Now the subtenant wants to bring in a non-related roommate. Can the board require this new person to apply just like the original subtenant?"

Habitat publisher Carol J. Ott discussed that question with two attorneys: Bruce Cholst, a partner at Rosen Livingston & Cholst, and David Byrne, a partner at Herrick Feinstein. This transcript of a "Legal Talk" podcast has been edited for clarity.

you really just showed your lack of a basic understanding here sonya. i know it can be confusing when adult talk. tenants, sub-tenants. they're all the same, right sonya?

Ok, first of all, get your posting straight. You post almost as poorly as you practice real estate.

Second of all, you contested that sub-tenants are not protected under the Roommate Law (different from what NYCMatt contested, which was that co-ops are exempt from the Roommate Law, which we have seen, above, is untrue).

In order to prove this, you provide a PODCAST of two lawyers, but the problem is, the Roommate Law doesn't even apply since the initial tenant is no longer using the property as his primary residence. THAT'S what the whole discussion is about.

"Isn't this not the very same situation..."
No. You need to READ the two.
The situation in the podcast:
"We have a shareholder in our co-op who moved out,"
The situation in the OP:
" now and plan to have my fiance move in with me."

You dumb cow: the owner of a co-op is the tenant.

Doh!

In case you need more handholding:
"Any lease or rental agreement for residential premises entered into by one tenant shall be construed to permit occupancy by the tenant, immediate family of the tenant, one additional occupant, and dependent children of the occupant provided that the tenant or the tenant's spouse occupies the premises as his primary residence."
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RPP/7/235-f

[Come on, let's hear it: "I have so much experience!! Listen to me!!"]

Would someone else try and educate Sonya to what a sub-tenant in a co-op is? And that shareholders and tenants mean the same thing and they are the owners?

Great, this is about subtenants in a co-op though. Clearly st least one attorney is of the opp pinion that that particular fact matters. And so do I. And matt and the other fellow who posted. And we all understand the difference. You Jane proven you don't by arguing so pedantically.

Oh, yeah, my laws and facts are no match for your "but but but... I'm so experienced!" LOL!

(and matt said co-ops are exempt, which is different from what you're claiming).

Your laws Sonya?

The law I linked to.
(not too quick, are we, jimmyboy?)

are you claiming to know know the law better than this person?

http://www.herrick.com/sitecontent.cfm?pageid=15&itemid=11140

because, he said this:

David Byrne: "My sense is that in this particular instance, the Roommate Law is not going to prohibit the board from engaging in its normal application and approval process. As I understand it, the Roommate Law is really protective of the tenant-shareholder while he or she resides in the apartment. So, once that situation no longer exists, then I think that the Roommate Law won't provide a shield for the subtenant."

sonya clearly didn't know that a tenant and shareholder are the same as an owner in a co-op.
the law protects them, as it should (if i owned a co-op and wanted to move a friend in for example). however, a subtenant creates some ambiguity (again, according to a ny real estate attorney). so, the OP will more than likely need to get his fiancee approved by the board. the board then, can, if they chose, deny her application for any reason.

further:

New York State adopted the colloquially titled Roommate Law — formally, New York Real Property Law, Section 235f, "Unlawful Restrictions on Occupancy") in 1983 in part to deal with widespread controversies regarding subleasing. Early on, the courts decided that the Roommate Law applies to co-ops, which operate under a proprietary lease.

The Roommate Law grants the right to have a roommate to a "tenant," whom it defines as "a person who is either a party to the lease or rental agreement for such premises." So that language is almost certainly broad enough to cover not only the proprietary lease between a co-op and a proprietary lessee, but also the sublease between a proprietary lessee and a subtenant. In short, a co-op sublease is a type of “lease or rental agreement," and thus, according to the law, the sublease should be construed to permit occupancy by a roommate of the subtenant.

The subtenant is allowed to charge the roommate whatever the market will bear — although the subtenant must reside there simultaneously with the roommate. If the subtenant is the sole named lessee in the sublease, however, then only one roommate is allowed, although both the subtenant and the roommate may bring in family members so long as the total occupancy does not exceed legal limits.

The law's applicability to condos is far more cloudy. The Roommate Law itself does not permit a unit-owner to take in a roommate; instead the condo bylaws would determine that. In fact, most do not expressly allow it, although New York State and New York City anti-discrimination laws might require it.

Robert Tierman is a partner in the law firm of Litwin & Tierman.

DOH!

here is another recent case of sonya not understanding the dynamics of the real estate market. note the parallel mention of "violent or dangerous breeds"

sonya claiming that the use of the terms "violent breeds" was an opinion. clearly the legislature doesn't think.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/35972-finding-an-apartment-with-a-big-dog

apartment.

In 2009, however, the New York City Housing Authority (which, in any case, is expressly exempt from the Dog Law) adopted rules banning residents of its buildings from harboring “dangerous dogs, fighting dogs or attack dogs” and expressly banning the “dog breeds (either full breed or mixed breed)” of “Doberman Pinscher, Pit Bull and Rottweiler.” This apparently required removal of existing dangerous dogs (although it is possible that this was challenged and not strictly enforced). It also then banned dogs “expected to weigh over 25 pounds when full grown,” but only prospectively.

Co-ops also can and do bar dogs by breed, as well as weight, but only prospectively because the Dog Law applies to them, assuming that its “three month,” “open and notorious,” “knowledge,” and other conditions are met. The appellate court governing Manhattan and the Bronx has held that the Dog Law does not apply to condo unit-owners, although, without more, it still might be hard, in the face of common law waiver principles, for a condo to prevail against such a unit-owner harboring a dangerous dog for an extensive period before implementation of a ban.

So the questioner’s co-op could adopt such a rule to prevent harboring of subsequently acquired dangerous dogs, but that would not solve the problem regarding the existing dangerous dog that prevented the leak repair. I also note that some dog enthusiasts question whether co-op or condos may bar dogs by breed, although I am aware of no case law holding that they may not. Since a co-op or condo can bar dogs altogether, at least prospectively, it follows that their boards also certainly can exercise their business judgment to bar certain categories of dogs, particularly if armed, to overcome any allegations of bad faith, with some reliable data confirming those banned as dangerous.

"are you claiming to know know the law better than this person?"
I'm just reading the law. Byrne said: ""My sense is that in this particular instance,"
See? In THAT particular instance, which is (from the text): "We have a shareholder in our co-op who moved out,".
The OP's particular instance is (from the text above): "and plan to have my fiance move in with me."
One's out, one's in. You might say... opposite? Try to find a better link (one that's REMOTELY related to what the OP is saying).

Your second quote:
"So that language is almost certainly broad enough to cover not only the proprietary lease between a co-op and a proprietary lessee, but also the sublease between a proprietary lessee and a subtenant."
(wait... weren't you saying that subtenant's are exempt?? or at least a "gray area"?) This quote helps MY side! LOL
["Now, if you can find somethign that address' the rights of SUBTENANTS than I might acquiesce."]
Ready to acquiesce, noob??

"although the subtenant must reside there simultaneously with the roommate."
Exactly what I said above (must be primary residence). That's why the example from habitatmag.com doesn't apply -- the guy moved OUT (remember? opposite?).

Not only all that, but the first roommate is allowed to charge rent!
"The subtenant is allowed to charge the roommate whatever the market will bear"
Thanks jimmyboy! You're doing all the work for me!

-----

Oh, and THANK YOU for bring up that old thread, where I schooled you this way and that. Please, take a read!
"sonya claiming that the use of the terms "violent breeds" was an opinion."
Wrong. I said that it was your opinion that the specific case in question, a german shepherd/lab mix, was violent.
From the thread:
"the usage of the term "violent" is your assumption and your opinion, and you were the first and only person to say this. Until proven true about this particular instance, it's stricken from the record."
Please quote me where I said:
"the use of the terms "violent breeds" was an opinion."
And low and behold, what's in YOUR VERY OWN LINK? "Doberman Pinscher, Pit Bull and Rottweiler." Not a german shepherd, not a lab. Forget that this is anecdotal at best. The specific dog in question isn't even supported in your very own link!! LOL!

on TOP... "New York State law contains various provisions defining (although not by breed) dangerous dogs."
Wait, didn't you say in original thread, "violent BREEDS"??
("As in "no known violent.breeds allowed" - jim_hones10 about 2 weeks ago)
("having a dangerous breed" - jim_hones10 about 3 weeks ago)
But but but... "various provisions defining (ALTHOUGH NOT BY BREED)..."
LOL!

on TOP TOP... the NYCHA is "expressly exempt from the Dog Law" LOL!
(and still waiting for the text of the "Dog Law").

on TOP TOP TOP.... finally, in black and white, from your VERY OWN LINK:
"So there is no law preventing the harboring of any particular breed of dog in a New York City apartment."

Wow... maybe I should just post all this new info in the original thread. Thanks for everything that helped confirm exactly what I was saying all along! LOL!

Schooled -- again.

You still don't realise that the op and the car referenced are the exact same. The shareholder moved out, the subtennant wants to move his girlfriend in. You are too dense

Bwahahaha! THATS what you got? A muddled sentence followed by "You are too dense"?? LOL! Even if what you just typed made a lick of sense in your own head, it wouldn't matter, because, as we now know from your very OWN LINK, the law applies to a... (wait for it...) the SUBTENANT!! lol. Ready to "acquiesce," noob? You are a true gem, jimmyboy.

Spanked around, and schooled again. How does your red face feel? Warm?

What about the dog thread? Should I post all this info there? Should I continue the spanking?

[lol... still laughing @ "you're too dense" after I COMPLETELY ripped jimmyboy's entire "evidence" apart, which ended up helping exactly what I was saying all along... co-op's ain't exempt, subtenants ain't exempt, maybe I should hire jimmyboy for all my research! LOL]

Also, still waiting for NYCMatt's elusive court cases where: "We've done it. It was disputed. We won." -- remember his "own experiences"?

Responding to a prior comment, I definitely do not want to be aggressive, and want to work within their proper channels. Just wanted to know what my rights are and what actions I could take just in case. Even though it seems the roommate law does apply, I plan to live here with my fiance so do not want to create a stir. Thanks for the comments

condo_coop_renter,
Thanks for sticking through all the BS caused by the above. As I agreed with him before, "unsure" said it best earlier -- reread his post and mine following it. Ultimately, as you have seen here, and as you understand and agree, your particular situation is protected by the law. Thanks for realizing this through all the "noise." Still, being courteous and polite is the best way to go about the process.

:-)

1. Manhattan's appellate court issued a ruling on that issue maybe 10-15 years ago
2. it held that someone living in a coop without its owner living there can only be there 14 days

3. I am not expert or current on this issue
4. but NY law in general allows one unrelated person to live as of right with a tenant

5. I allow all my tenants, all of whom are in coops, to live with an unrelated person
6. none of the Coop Corporations have ever objected to those extra occupants

7. however,t he apts are usually Sponsor Unsold Shares, so that migth be why

Ha, jimmyboy gets schooled from all directions. High5, rb345! ;-)

Sonya/NWT:

1. I think that appellate ruling interpreted a paragraph 14 of a coop proprietary
lease which is a standard boilerplate form in many leases, and involved the
word "guest", so it can be searched for using proprietary lease, quest, first
and paragraph as search terms

2. Jim Hones might be partially right, however

3. although ths New York Court of Appeals Braschi decision gives tenants the right
to have one unrelated roommate, New York law gives the beneficiaries of statutes
enacted to protect them the right to waive such protections as long as such waiver
is knowing and volunary and does not involve inherently wrongful acts or acts that
violate state public policy, such as leasing out children for use in porn films

4. and the First Department, the appeals court for Manhattan, has expressly ruled that
Coops have the authority to set restrictions on the use of an apartment as a condi-
tion to letting someone buy it

5. that case, Strauss v. ... 73rd, involved a use restriction which barred the purchasers'
children from living in the apartment

6. if those children were like me, the parents were probably grateful to their Coop baord
for its compassion and indulgence

Well, if the apartment/roommate in question involves a child pornographer, we'll be sure to call in jimbo for his "expert" opinion.