Sale at 955 Park Avenue #1A

You haven't seen a zoning variance because one isn't required. The building just gets a new CofO from the DoB. No big deal.

You're correct that the co-op has allocated a hefty number of shares to the space.

I wonder what the unit is listed as on Schedule A of the offering Plan? If it is listed as medical offices it would not be unusual for it to be issued more shares than a studio of equal square footage elsewhere in the building. And I am pretty sure the the law used to be that the only way a space could be issued shares (as opposed to a long term lease) is it it could potentially legally be turned into a residential unit. This was part of the impetus behind the creation of CondOps - when "sweetheart" leases were made illegal, sponsors needed a way to retain the commercial space and since they could not longer write themselves 99 year, well below market leases, they simply made them a separate condominium and retained ownership of that.

The 1977 offering plan has no shares allocated to the four or five ground-floor offices. Instead, the current lessees could buy long-term renewable leases. Their rent would be a percentage of the co-op's "cash requirements". For 1A, that was 3.5%.

I don't know whether that was amended, and shares issued, when the three or four other offices were turned into residential.

Then you have to really wonder what it is that you would be buying here. I remember on the late 1980's I almost bought an apatment in The Portsmouth on West 9th Street but I ultimately didn't go thru with the deal because in the Offering Plan it was listed as the building's office with no shares allocated and there was no Amendment authorizing shares for the unit.

a leasehold interest

So if it is so easy, why don't buildings get a new C of O prior to listing these units?

Because they'd have to put in a bare-bones but functioning kitchen. Here, the plumbing's probably in the wall between bath and waiting room. They don't want to spend the money, and don't want to make the space less attractive to a medical user. I guess they've already realized that no residential user will spend half a million plus reno costs, then pay $5K maintenance, toget a little one-bedroom apartment.

So I was correct , it's a medical office and isn't going to be a residential apartment.