Page 24 - New York Cooperator January 2019

24 THE COOPERATOR — JANUARY 2019 COOPERATOR.COM 200 West 57th Street, Suite, 702, New York, NY 10019 4 Executive Blvd, Suite 100, Suffern, NY 10901 www.multifamilymgt.com Multifamily Management Services is dedicated to providing the best Property Management experience with personalized service for Co-op’s, Condo’s and Mitchell Lama Housing. Jonathan Klein SVP Condo/Co-op Division 212-765-7900 x 134 Samuel Rotter COO/CFO 212-765-7900 x 337 around 10 years ago, the FCC ruled that community associations could not flat out prohibit satellite dishes, and that they had to be allowed in limited com- mon areas” says David Barrett, President of RCM Services in Allston, Massachu- setts. “This meant that they could still be prohibited \[in associations\] where there were no limited common areas, but other associations had to put limitations on dish installation lest residents go wild.” Since then, streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and others have come on the scene and changed the game. “Every- one cool (lol) is binge watching Netflix and Amazon,” jokes Scott B. Piekarsky, Managing Member of the Wyckoff, New Jersey-based law firm Piekarsky & As- sociates, LLC, while pointing to the very real – and somewhat ironic – trend of as- sociations loosening their rules around satellite installations just as the increas- ing reliance on streaming services has sharply reduced the demand for clunky exterior dishes. Conservatives Of course, in many instances, a board will act to avoid change and maintain the status quo for as long as possible. Mark R. Rosenbaum, a principal at the law firm of Fischel Kahn in Chicago, notes that of- ten when boards proactively revise their rules, it’s to make them more punitive, not less. “The most common change I see is that the board spells out in some detail the process involved in fining owners, or imposing other penalties on owners for violations of association documents,” Rosenbaum says. “Boards tend to find fining other owners distasteful, and gen- erally hope that it won’t be necessary – and because of that, the rules governing the process have often been vestigial. But as boards have been told by courts to take their duties more seriously, and as own- ers have pushed the limits of ‘neighborli- ness,’ boards have found that they have to enforce their documents. And the more the rules spell out exactly how that pro- cess is to happen, the more boards can use that road map to make sure that the process is as bulletproof as possible, in case the matter comes up before a court.” Even the issues discussed above that are increasingly leading to progressive change can sometimes yield the opposite. For example, Barrett notes that while it’s likely that associations will have to wel- come emotional support animals, many boards are reacting to this by drafting rules that make it easier for them to take remedial action against pet owners, should Fido or Fluffy cause problems. “Generally speaking, in New England boards want to maintain their control,” Barrett notes. “I haven’t seen many com- munities acting progressively, i.e., ‘Let’s just make it easier for everyone to have pets,’ or anything like that.” And when progressive change does come, it may not be immediate. Bruck- er agrees that as stated previously, hu- man beings have an inclination to resist change. “There are many people, when presented with any alteration to the sta- tus quo, will automatically be negative,” he says. “But when enough of their neigh- bors stand up at an annual meeting and advocate for things like park benches, or a place to put strollers, the board has to listen, or that board won’t be sitting in its seats much longer.” n Mike Odenthal is a staff writer/reporter for The Cooperator. AMENDING RULES continued from page 23 mission loss factor than lead to eliminate sound, and it’s only an 1/8th of an inch thick.” But what if your building is already up, and the sound just keeps on com- ing? Marsh suggests that you can either put up a false wall between your place and the next apartment, which could cost you a few square inches of space. But she says that may be well worth it for a good night’s sleep. Or you could build a closet along the offending wall and use it to store clothes and toys, sure to absorb the sound. She relates one client who’s neigh- bor had a very regular schedule for his “personal life.” Saturday morning comes once a week, as the adage says. The neighbor was like clockwork, and very noisy. Marsh suggested adding a false wall, which would have absorbed the sound. Ultimately, the client chose to do nothing. Perhaps the neighbor changed his schedule. What’s New and Improving? “More innovative sound control products have been patented in the last few years than ever before,” says Schnitta. “Before where there wasn’t a solution; now we have one. A good example is a type of pad that if you put this down be- fore you pour concrete for a foundation, it will inhibit subway noise if there is one nearby. Knowing that resiliency is an im- portant piece of the solution set for walls, there are new clips that have neoprene pads integral to the design to prevent connecting drywall to channel sound. Also, a lot of attention to acoustic leakage points like wrapping the backs of outlets helps. An acoustic muffler will inhibit sound from coming through recessed lights that are not fully insulated cans.” Clearly, every little bit helps. n AJ Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for The Cooperator, and a published novelist. SOUNDPROOFING continued from page 21 have claims against the downstairs neigh- bor, the ideal legal strategy would be to initially demand that the co-op take steps to remedy the situation, failing which the shareholder may take action against the co-op to enforce his or her rights under the warranty of habitability and/or the right to quiet enjoyment. “The questioner should begin the pro- cess by making a written complaint to the co-op corporation and its managing agent based on a detailed, written record documenting the dates and times when second-hand smoke created a nuisance in the questioner’s apartment. The co- op and its managing agent may request access to further investigate these claims, and the questioner should facilitate such access so that a forceful record can be created. The next step would be for the co-op and/or its managing agent to con- tact the downstairs neighbor and to re- quire that measures be taken to prevent smoke from drifting out of the smoker’s apartment to other areas of the building, including into the questioner’s apart- ment unit. If the co-op fails to do so, or if the measures to remediate the sec- ondhand smoke are unsuccessful, then the questioner could try to pressure the co-op to commence legal action against the smoker, possibly by enlisting other shareholders who may also have con- cerns with second-hand smoke. Lastly, if the co-op refuses to begin legal action, the questioner could commence legal ac- tion against the co-op to try to compel the co-op to remedy the second-hand smoke situation, claiming a breach of the warranty of habitability and/or the right to quiet enjoyment. “Most proprietary leases contain an attorneys’ fees provision, providing that the co-op (as landlord) may recover at- torneys’ fees and expenses in the event of a shareholder (tenant) default. Un- der New York Real Property Law Section 234, such an attorneys’ fees provision would be applied reciprocally, so that fees would be awarded when a shareholder- tenant prevails in a litigation based upon the co-op/landlord’s breach. There is no likely basis for recovering attorneys’ fees against the downstairs neighbor, howev- er, which is one reason that the question- er may prefer to commence legal action, if any, against the co-op.” Who’s Financially Responsible for Repairs? Q There is structural damage in a sponsor-owned apartment. The rent-controlled tenants who live there require specific accommo- dations within their apartment due to a disability. The overall construction is the Q&A continued from page 5