COOPERATORNEWS: Welcome Julie, great having you with us today.

JULIE SCHECHTER: “Thanks so much for inviting me.”

CN: Enlighten us—what exactly is in the Co-Op Transparency Law?

SCHECHTER: “This is a new New York City law, formally known as Intro 1120-B. It imposes for the first time statutory deadlines on how long a co-op board may take to review a purchase application. Effective July 28, it applies to cooperatives with 10 or more residential units; condominiums, HDFCs, and government-supervised co-ops are excluded. The board's underlying authority is unchanged—it may still approve, deny, or conditionally approve an application, but it must now act within defined timeframes.”

CN: What are the compliance mechanics, and who's on the hook to uphold them?

SCHECHTER: “Good question. There are three key components: First, every board must maintain a standardized application package, setting out in advance the forms, fees, and documents required of a purchaser. 

“Second, once an application is submitted, the board has 15 days to notify the applicant in writing, by both email and registered mail, whether the package is complete—and if not, exactly what is missing. If the board fails to send that notice within 15 days, the application is deemed complete by operation of law, which creates a strong incentive for timely review.  

“Third, once an application is complete, the board has 45 days to issue its decision: approval, conditional approval, or denial. Boards that do not meet over the summer are afforded some relief: if they formally adopt a written ‘summer recess’ notice in advance, specifying the applicable dates, the statutory clock is tolled during July and August. That protection is available only if the notice has been properly documented beforehand; it cannot be invoked after the fact.”

CN: How is this different from what existed before?

SCHECHTER: “The honest answer is that nothing like this existed before. Co-op boards operated under their own bylaws and by their own timetables, with no legal consequence for taking months to review a file. Buyers could lose mortgage rate locks, sellers could watch deals drag on indefinitely, and there was no outside mechanism forcing a resolution either way. This law is the first time the city has put a hard, enforceable clock on that process.”

CN: Is this a real change for boards, or just a tempest in a teapot?

SCHECHTER: “It is a real change, though not a revolution. By compelling boards to act, it meaningfully shifts leverage toward buyers and sellers—a genuine, practical benefit that should reduce cost and uncertainty in transactions. That said, it does not disturb the board's core authority: a board may still reject an applicant without stating a reason. 

“Earlier versions of the bill went further, including a provision that would have deemed a sale automatically approved if a board missed its deadline, and a private right of action allowing rejected buyers to recover attorney's fees. Both of those provisions were removed before enactment. On balance, this should be understood as a meaningful procedural reform, not a fundamental shift in the board's substantive power.”

CN: Does this create an onerous burden for boards, managers, buyers, or sellers?

SCHECHTER: “For boards and managing agents, the burden is only significant if their existing processes are not already organized. In practice, this law requires greater professionalization: standardized packages, disciplined calendaring, and prompt written notices. Buildings with well-run management should adapt without much difficulty; buildings operating more informally will need to tighten their procedures quickly, and managing agents in particular should take this seriously given their new, direct statutory liability. 

“For buyers and sellers, it’s unambiguously favorable. Buyers gain a predictable timeline, and protection against indefinite delay. Sellers gain greater certainty that a deal will not stall for months on end. No new burden is placed on either party; if anything, the law provides greater transparency into a process that has historically lacked it.”

CN: Is there anything else we need to know?

SHECHTER: “A few points worth flagging for readers: this law is not limited to purchase applications; it also applies to other transfers requiring board approval, such as trust transfers, gifts, and estate transfers. And while the deadlines are strict, boards retain a limited release valve: a board may extend the 45 day decision period once, by up to 14 days, simply by notifying the purchaser before the original deadline expires, and purchasers may consent to further extensions beyond that.”

CN: On behalf of our readers, thanks so much, Julie.

SHECHTER: “My pleasure!”