Published: Summer 1995
New York Leaders Discuss
Cooperative and Condominium Reform
July 1995 joint hearing explores
A record crowd turned out when the Standing Committees on Housing of New York
State's Senate and Assembly held a joint hearing in Queens on July 26,
1995 to investigate economic and policy changes which could improve the
viability of cooperative and condominium housing. Co-hosted by Queens
Borough President Claire Shulman, Senator Vincent Leibell, who chairs
the Senate Committee on Housing and Community Development, and Assemblyman
Vito J. Lopez, chairman of the Assembly Housing Committee, this important
hearing invited testimony on eight key issues: reserves, management, refinancing,
foreclosure, legal action against sponsors, board approval of purchasers,
percentage of purchasers required for conversion, and transfer of board
control from the sponsor.
More than 30 public officials, cooperative and condominium association
leaders, co-op and condo board members and shareholders, and others from
the real estate industry testified. New York State Attorney General Dennis
Vacco made a statement, as did Stuart Saft, chairman of the Council of
New York Cooperatives & Condominiums, Charles Rappaport, president
of the Federation of New York Housing Cooperatives, and representatives
of the Real Estate Board of New York, the Community Preservation Corporation,
the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Cooperative Bank.
Almost every speaker stressed the need for a private right of action
so that cooperatives and condominiums could bring suit against
sponsors who fail to comply with the law or to live up to
promises made in their offering plans. This issue, along with
resolving both sponsor and shareholder defaults, supervising
management, raising the minimum percentage of shares needed
for conversion, and increasing the availability of financing,
were deemed to merit immediate attention.
Claire Shulman Works to Strengthen Co-ops and Condos
Borough President Shulman co-hosted an earlier hearing in October 1989,
as problems were beginning to surface. Subsequently, her office addressed
a myriad of financial problems afflicting as many as one out of every
four of the approximately 80,000 units converted in Queens since 1980.
She pointed out that many Queens complexes had been threatened by foreclosure
after sponsor defaults. Resident-owners feared the loss of their homes
and tenants feared reduced services. To learn more about these issues,
Borough President Shulman held several hearings and forums. In 1990, she
formed the Queens co-op/condo task force, comprised of government enforcement
agencies, industry leaders and local experts.
Many of the problems required legislative solutions. Thanks to the bipartisan
efforts of the state legislature, several co-op reform bills have been
passed since 1990, but Mrs. Shulman seeks additional legislation that
will go even further towards ensuring the stability of co-ops and condos
in New York. "First and foremost," she insisted, "we need
to increase the minimum percentage of shares to be sold before a non-eviction
plan can be declared effective." Currently, a sponsor only needs
subscriptions to purchase 15% of a building's units. This enables sponsors
to market units almost exclusively to outsiders. Most financially troubled
conversions occur in buildings where few "insiders", if any,
purchase. These "counterfeit co-ops" are run, not by resident-shareholders,
but by lenders, outside investors and bankrupt sponsors.
"I have long advocated legislation which would require that a minimum
of 25% of bona fide tenants agree to purchase shares before a co-op can
be converted. A law such as this would result in co-ops that are truly
cooperative communities of homeowners," she insisted. "Some
would say that this legislation is not needed because few conversions
are occurring at this time, I say we need to act now to prevent a repetition
of the terrible problems that we experienced over the past few years."
The Borough President is a strong supporter of a private right of action
under the Martin Act to permit shareholders who are defrauded to pursue
an action against the sponsor. "Currently, only the Attorney General
can bring such an action against sponsors who fail to make material disclosures
or who make false statements," she stated. "Unfortunately, the
Attorney General's office does not have the capacity to handle the large
number of cases brought to its attention. Granting this right to individuals
who have been harmed will give shareholders redress and significantly
relieve the Attorney General's burden." The Borough President is
particularly intent on preventing foreclosures.
"Freddie Mac's foreclosure on a Brooklyn co-op in 1993 has brought
to a head the issue of what happens to a co-op that `deconverts,'"
she said. "When a lender forecloses on a co-op's underlying mortgage,
the co-op reverts to a rental building. The Division of Housing and Community
Renewal has been studying the issue of how rents should be set in deconverted
buildings." Since her office devoted countless hours to long, complex
negotiations with co-ops, sponsors, lending institutions and investors
to prevent foreclosures.
Mrs. Shulman expressed great concern about suggestions that building
rents be set at market levels upon deconversion: "This action would
be a great incentive to mortgagees to foreclose on defaulting loans rather
than sit through a difficult, often protracted workout process,"
she stated, adding that, "today, co-op mortgages are not only held
by institutional lenders, but by sponsors and investors or so-called `white
knights.' Some of these individuals may be less concerned about the effect
of a foreclosure on building residents and the community than an institutional
lender would be.
"It has been the mission of my office to do everything possible
to protect innocent purchasers of co-ops and condos from having
their investments - often lifetime savings - wiped out. That
is why I believe that a compromise solution to this problem
which protects co-op residents and is fair to the concerns
of lenders needs to be developed," she insisted. "I
have urged members of the co-op and banking communities to
come together to develop such a solution."
ATTORNEY GENERAL VACCO MAKES FIRST PUBLIC STATEMENT ON CO-OP AND CONDO
In his first public statement about co-ops and condos, New York State
Attorney General Dennis Vacco affirmed that these housing issues were
important, and that he, too, want to find ways to resolve them.
The Attorney General submitted two bills to the state legislature concerning
this subject. The first requires that the sponsor cure building violations
before an offering plan could be accepted for filing, and the second would
permit co-ops, condos, and Homeowner Associations to collect rent directly
from the tenant of a defaulting unit owner, to help affected co-ops and
condos meet their financial obligations and reduce the amount that non-delinquent
unit owners would have to pay to make up the shortfall caused by the default.
Mr. Vacco noted that the Attorney General's office plays a significant
role in the enforcement of the co-op and condominium laws of New York
State, a fact which benefits both consumers and owners of property. He
affirmed that, "as Attorney General, it is my intention to strengthen
this tradition and make certain that a level playing field exists so that
both landlords and tenants can feel that they are treated fairly. My office
stands ready to work with all of you today towards that goal."
The Attorney General acknowledged that property managers play a vital
role in ensuring the quality of the housing they manage. "My overriding
goal is to ensure that property managers are honest in their dealings
and have a solvent business," he said. "As the recent indictment
by the Manhattan District Attorney for kickbacks in the management of
cooperatives indicates, there has been corruption in cooperative and condominium
management that drives up the cost of housing. We want to prevent the
unscrupulous and the dishonest from entering the building management field.
We must do more than simply issue a license after a class to ensure protection
for both owners and tenants against those few who might think otherwise."
Mr. Vacco concluded on a positive note. "Part of the solution for
the future entails investigating sponsor abuses, I support
the proposals that enhance my power to do so," he stated,
adding: "I realize the importance of these issues and
the need for careful scrutiny to have the best solutions.
I am in the process of forming a task force to review our
current regulation of co-ops and condos, proposed legislative
solutions and ways my office can better perform." He
invited Borough President Shulman to join this task force.
CNYC CHAIRMAN PROVIDES DETAILED REVIEW OF CRUCIAL ISSUES
Stuart M. Saft, Esq., chairman, Council of New York Cooperatives &
Condominiums, presented detailed testimony reviewing many important issues.
The following is an excerpt:
I would like to speak of some of the more pressing immediate issues and
to suggest legislative solutions to some of them.
A. Private Right of Action. To insure that sponsors disseminate accurate
offering plans, both the purchasers and the cooperative corporation or
condominium association should have the right to assert violations of
the Martin Act in litigation against sponsors who fail to provide accurate
or complete disclosure. This change in the Martin Act would substantially
reduce the burden placed on the Department of Law and would enable market
forces to solve many of the problems with which we have had to deal over
the last six years. The sponsors, knowing that the purchasers can raise
Martin Act claims, will provide more thorough and complete disclosure,
which will reduce the need for purchasers to bring such lawsuits.
B. Collection of Rent from the Tenants of Defaulting Shareholders'. Since
1988, an unprecedented number of shareholders in cooperative housing corporations
and unit owners in condominium associations have defaulted on their maintenance,
assessments and common charges. These defaults have placed a huge financial
burden on the non-defaulting shareholders and unit owners and have destabilized
the operation of these commonly owned buildings. Because of delays endemic
in the law, the cooperative housing corporation and condominium associations
cannot expeditiously terminate the interest of the defaulting owners in
Often, during the period of time that a unit owner or shareholder is
in default on maintenance payments, that same apartment owner may nevertheless
sublet his or her apartment and collect rent from the subtenant. Thus,
the legal system allows a defaulting owner to profit while delaying the
ability of the cooperative housing corporation or condominium association
to terminate the interests of the defaulting owner.
Included as Exhibit B to my testimony is a proposed Modification of General
Business Law §352-e 2-d(a), which enables the board of directors
of a cooperative corporation or the board of managers of a condominium
association to collect rent from occupants of units in the cooperative
or condominium buildings when the owner of the shares appurtenant to the
apartment or of the unit does not occupy the apartment or unit and is
not paying maintenance, assessments or common charges. We believe that
the enactment of this modification of GBL §352-e 2-d(a) is essential
to reduce the number of defaults and allow the buildings to operate.
C. Acceleration of Condominium Foreclosures. Pursuant to existing law,
each condominium unit owner can obtain a mortgage on his or her unit securing
an unlimited amount of indebtedness. As a result of the language contained
in Real Property Law (RPL) §339-z, if a unit owner defaults, the
condominium association cannot obtain its unpaid common charges and assessments
until the mortgagee has been paid its entire principal balance and accrued
interest. During the pendency of the condominium's or the mortgagee's
foreclosure action - which could take up to four years under the Real
Property Actions and Proceedings Law (the RPAPL) - the condominium does
not have the ability to collect common charges or assessments from the
defaulting unit owner. Non-defaulting unit owners must often pay additional
assessments to cover the cost of operation of the building while the defaulting
unit owners live in the building for free. Furthermore, in the event the
proceeds from the sale of the defaulting unit owner's unit are less than
the outstanding principal balance and accrued interest on the mortgage,
then the condominium association will never receive any of its common
charges or assessments for the period in which the unit owner was in default.
Far too often it is this scenario that prevails.
Included as Exhibit B to my testimony is a proposed modification of the
Condominium Act (Real Property Law Article 9- B) which provides condominium
associations with the ability to expedite the payment of common charges
and assessments by enabling the board of managers to foreclose a common
charge lien through foreclosure by publication similar to the method used
by cooperative housing corporations to collect unpaid maintenance from
defaulting shareholders. It even contains provisions to assist a mortgagee
in foreclosing its mortgage. This legislation does not change the priority
between the mortgagee and the condominium, it simply accelerates the process
so that it can be completed in three months rather than four years. This
bill has been introduced in the Assembly by John Ravitz, but does not
yet have a sponsor in the Senate.
D. Assuring Principled Management. In 1994, the Manhattan District Attorney
brought indictments against dozens of managing agents, shedding light
on a most unfortunate aspect of this industry. Cooperative and condominiums
that had already spent years dealing with continuing financial crises
learned to their dismay that many of the managing agents to whom they
had entrusted the day-to-day care of their homes were corrupt.
To ameliorate this situation, the Assembly and Senate can do a number
of things, which we suggested to Senator Roy Goodman's Committee on Investigations
last year, namely: 1. Investigating and licensing managers; 2. Requiring
management firms to keep separate client accounts without commingling
funds; 3. Requiring annual audits of management companies; 4. Affirming
management companies' responsibility for acts of their employees; 5. Obliging
management companies to turn over books and records upon termination;
and 6. Providing that court costs can be awarded to cooperatives and condominiums
whose agent has committed a fraud.
Mr. Saft went on to further propose:
- Reducing excessive interest on late real estate tax payments;
- Establishing that maintenance charges (i.e., true cost of operating
the building) should become the rent due from former shareholders following
- Granting resident-shareholder control of the board upon conversion;
- Acknowledging the homeowner status of cooperative shareholders and
condominium unit owners; and
- Establishing a separate part in Housing Court for cooperative and
FEDERATION SUPPLEMENTS HEARING AGENDA
Charles Rappaport, president of the Federation of New York Housing Cooperatives,
digressed from the proposed agenda to call attention to problems raised
by Real Property Law 235(g), the "roommate law", which states
that one adult non-family member and that person's minor children can
occupy an apartment with the tenant. The courts have ruled that 235(f)
applies to cooperatives.
"Here," insisted Rappaport, "is a law which penalizes
all cooperators and unit owners. They are paying for the increased use
of water and the related water and sewer taxes; increased use of utilities
where included in the cooperative's maintenance charges; increased use
of elevators and garbage disposal and increased exposure to injury claims.
Security is jeopardized because a board has less control over who is now
occupying the apartment.
Lastly, the apartment may be too small for the number of occupants. Experience
has shown that non-owner tenants are less careful about the building and
its amenities." Mr. Rappaport demanded legislation to make it clear
that 235(f) does not apply to cooperatives.
Mr. Rappaport concluded by voicing his organization's support for a co-op
and condo section of the Housing Court. "Most Housing Court judges
seem not to understand the difference between a rental building and a
cooperative," he said.