super apartment

Of course it is. Be happy....will reduce your coop fees.

Doubtful OP will see any reduction in maintenance or other fees, dean.

Legally your super must live within 200 feet of the building if he does not reside in the building.

Can you please indicate the law/regulation which mandates this 200 feet rule?
Thank you

article 83 https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/MultipleDwellingLaw.pdf

Thank you. However, apparently there is no mention about "200 feet" rule in this document...

§83. Janitor or housekeeper. Whenever there are thirteen or more families occupying any
multiple dwelling and the owner does not reside therein, there shall be a janitor, housekeeper or
some other person responsible on behalf of the owner who shall reside in said dwelling, or within
a dwelling located within a distance of *** two hundred feet ***from said dwelling, and have charge of
such dwelling, except that where two or three multiple dwellings are connected or adjoining, one
resident janitor shall be sufficient. In every garden-type maisonette dwelling project erected after
April eighteenth, nineteen hundred fifty-four, adequate personnel shall be provided for the lawful
care and maintenance of such project

Squid, Great info. However, I know many building including mine with more than 13 units where there is no resident staff within a mile. In addtion, there are buildings with only part time super with more than 13 apartments. I also know larger building which never had a super’s apartment. Perhaps there was a change in the law or this particular part does not get enforced.

Sorry my error (I was searching for "200")
Thank you

So , according to this, our board took an illegal decision.
What can be done to reverse that?

Look at your house rules, see what it says for your building.

Unlikely this issue is mentioned in prop lease or house rules. Makes no difference either way - city law would take precedence. And agree with Mercer that the law probably doesn't get enforced - unless someone makes a stink about it.

I have to say, 400 unit building with no live in super does not sound good.

The law says it applies to a building in which the owner does not reside. It does not appear at all to apply to coops or condos. If it did, pretty much all small condos or coops would be non-compliant as there is no place to house a super. That said, it would be insane to give up that apartment for a few thousand dollars a month in rent. It is impossible to find a decent non-live in super, and even more impossible to keep one after you find him or her.

That is great point. In coops and condo, the owners do reside.

>>That is great point. In coops and condo, the owners do reside.<<

With co-ops, shareholders are 'lessees' of the corporation (lessor). The lessor is responsible for building maintenance, just as in any rental building. Best to check with an attorney on whether the same law applies but I have always understood that it does.

Without being an expert, I would think owners of the corporation do reside in the coop. That is probably why this rule is not enforced.

https://cooperator.com/article/finding-good-help/full

Wow!!! There is a lot more to this. Thank you for the link.

Our building (400 apartments) is a former Mitchell Lama rental, converted to an affordable. As a result, the sponsor still owns 1/4 of the apartments (not everybody purchased) and because of his big no of shares, pretty much controls who gets elected on the board. Nobody (not voted by the sponsor) was so far elected on this board which, while "democratically" elected (sponsor is a shareholder after all and votes like everybody else) is fully controlled by the sponsor.
So they decided to make some money renting the super's apartment, while offering some extra cash to the super in compensation for the free rent he was entitled to. Maybe he did not want to live in the building I suppose (he was a former assistant to the old super who retired and vacated the apartment, and is now promoted to full super)

ddd