Page 18 - New England Condominium June 2019

18 NEW ENGLAND CONDOMINIUM -JUNE 2019 NEWENGLANDCONDO.COM www.RiskStrategies.com Specializing in Insurance and Risk Management Services for: For more information Contact Thomas Shields | Producer E: TShields@risk-strategies.com P: 781-961-0314 A: 15 Pacella Park Drive, Suite 240, Randolph, MA 02368 Bernie Gitlin | Executive VP E: Bgitlin@risk-strategies.com P: 781-961-0330 C ondominiums C ommunity A ssoCiAtions HoA C ommunities C ooperAtives quires contractors who perform mold as- sessment, remediation and/or abatement services to obtain appropriate training and proper licensing, and also establishes new minimum work standards for mold assessments and remediation activities. “This is certainly good news intended to assist the affected individuals,” he con- tinues, “but can place additional finan- cial and other burdens on a cooperative corporation. While the law does provide exceptions for cooperative corporations when a shareholder and their family re- sides in the apartment, and does allow the cooperative to shift liability via agree- ment (which itself may be problematic, since as ‘landlord’, the co-op corporation is nonetheless liable to ensure that the warranty of habitability is not breached) this new law will certainly require man- aging agents and boards to investigate whether it applies, and to take action when it does.” Marc Schneider, Managing Partner of the New York-based law firm of Schnei- der Buchel, mentions a new regulation in New York City that directly relates to the Fair Housing Act as it has been interpret- ed to protect residents with disabilities. He says: “New York City recently amend- ed the section of the administrative code governing reasonable accommodation, requiring a cooperative dialogue when dealing with a reasonable accommoda- tion request.” Schneider explains that ‘cooperative dialogue’ means the process by which an entity – in this case a co-op or a condo board – engages in a good-faith written or verbal dialogue to address a particular issue. “It is now unlawful to refuse or fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue with whomever requests accommodation. Not only can you not deny \\\[a reasonable re- quest\\\], you must have a discussion about it with the person making the request.” This change has particular relevance to residents in buildings with policies that exclude certain types of pet own- ership – particularly dogs. In truth, it’s pretty easy to obtain a note from a doctor claiming a resident has legitimate need for a ‘comfort animal.’ Schneider explains that there is plenty of evidence of fraud in this area. What’s a board to do? “I have clients who have no-pet poli- cies in their buildings,” says Schneider, “and they have to deal with these requests for comfort pets. The unfortunate part of the situation is that there is abuse – and the abuse will continue, unfortunately, because to prevent that abuse the law must be amended in such a manner that those people who truly have need are not penalized.” Upstate New York Hakim outlines another ordinance that co-op and condo owners in other jurisdictions should pay attention to, as something similar could someday be en- acted in their locality. “Another example, which has not yet made its way to New York City, is a law passed in Westchester in December 2018 requiring Westchester co-op boards to advise potential purchas- ers within 15 days of submission of their purchase application whether or not their application is complete. Once it is complete, \\\[boards\\\] now have 60 days to accept or reject the application. If an ap- plication is rejected, the board must send a notice of the rejection to the county’s human rights commission. “For co-op boards that fail to meet the 60-day threshold,” he continues, “a fine of $1,000 could be levied for their first of- fense; a second offense would involve a $1,500 fine, and the human rights com- mission would levy a fine of $2,000 for a third offense. It does not require the board to articulate any reason for the rejection, however. Rockland County already has a similar law which states that in essence, a board is required to act within 45 days or an application is deemed approved. Ob- viously, boards should be acting expedi- tiously, but I am always concerned when absent a discrimination issue or other legally compelling reason, the legislature gets involved with resales and co-op cor- porations. These could certainly find a way down to New York City in some form in the near future.” No matter what state or municipality your building or HOA is in, law and leg- islation are living, growing, breathing or- ganisms. It’s important to watch not only what’s going on in your village, town, city, and state, but everywhere else. You never know when a situation in your area will require the same consideration as it got elsewhere. n A J Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for New England Condominium and a published novelist. LEGAL... continued from page 6 another, governed by their individual associations,” he continues. “One had residents who were willing to pay for up- grades on a regular cycle. The other had residents there for decades who did not see why they ever needed to do anything different from what they’d always been doing, because everything looked fine from their point of view. Observing the buildings side by side, one appeared sleek and modern while the other appeared to be crumbling from disrepair. As a result, resale prices were substantially differ- ent!” Whether a board member bends the rules in an effort to seem magnanimous, GOVERNING... continued from page 9