New York considered a co-op and condo ombudsperson funded by $6 per unit a year. Its own memo explains why.
New York considered a co-op and condo ombudsperson funded by $6 per unit a year. Its own memo explains why.
2026-09-15 · New York · Legislation · Pending — not yet law
New York has debated a condominium and cooperative ombudsman for years. The 2025–2026 vehicle was A10286 and its Senate companion S7745, and neither left committee. What makes them worth reading anyway is the sponsor's memorandum, which is the most candid official statement we have found of why New York association governance has no referee.
Here is the passage. It is long, and the typographical errors are in the official document:
“Under Article 23A of New York's General Business Law, the Attorney General is responsible for the regulation of public offerings of real estate securities... This protects potential buyers from fraud through detailed disclosure requirements. Once cooperative and condominium offering plans are declared effective, condominiums then fall under the New York State Condominium Act and cooperatives fall under the state's Business Corporation Law - the statute which regulates all the state's corporations. Unless the sponsor is still controlling the board of directors or is not keeping the commitments which it made in the offering plan, the Attorney General no longer has jurisdiction or oversight responsibilities,' While the Condominium Act and the General Business Law grant condominium unit owners and residential cooperative shareholders some rights, for the most part, they leave many issues to t he cooperative or condominium's governing documents... Neither the Condominium Act nor the Business Corporation Law provide a remedy short of litigation if these governing documents are not adhered to.” [sic]1
Two options, and neither is good
The memorandum then states the consequence plainly:
“Because there is no government agency or other entity which oversees the operation of cooperatives and condominiums, shareholdets and unit owners are left with only two options when serious problems develop: to organize other residents to change the board of directors or managers, or to initiate legal action against the board or another shareholder or unit owner.” [sic]
It adds that changing a board “often takes an extended period of time, and is difficult or even impossible in buildings where the original building sponsor or another party controls the majority of votes,” and that litigation “frequently detracts from the quality of life in buildings, harms the sense of community, and ultimately results in greater expenses for everyone since boards have to pass the costs of legal fees along to all residents.”
The fee is the part everyone noticed
Section 3 of the bill would add Tax Law § 186-h. Per the memorandum: “Each cooperative corporation and condominium association shall pay an annual fee of six dollars per year to the Department of Taxation and Finance for each residential unit located in a building or buildings owned or operated by such corporation or association.” The fiscal note reads: “None. The Cooperative and Condominium Ombudsperson Program will be fully funded by the creation of the six dollar residential unit fee.”
What the office would and would not do
This is where most commentary overreaches, so it is worth being exact. The programme would sit inside the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which would fund a not-for-profit entity selected by competitive bidding to act as the ombudsperson. Its functions, per the Assembly memorandum: prepare educational and reference materials; organise meetings, workshops, conferences and forums; “provide mediation, arbitration, and other forms of alternative dispute resolution”; refer parties to DHCR hearings where ADR fails; and “offer monitors and vote counting services to assure fair elections for board membership.” Staff would include at least one attorney or professional with experience in real estate, co-op and condo law, and dispute resolution, subject to a code of ethics.
It creates no new substantive duties on boards and no enforcement power over them. It is a referee and an educator, not a regulator. Anyone describing it as “state oversight of HOAs” is wrong twice over — once on oversight, and once on HOAs, because the bill covers cooperatives and condominiums only. New York homeowners associations are not in it at all.
The new Real Property Law Article 11 would be structured as § 360 short title, § 360-a legislative declaration, § 360-b definitions, § 360-c the programme, § 360-d services, § 360-e registration of cooperatives and condominiums, § 360-f assistance of other state agencies, § 360-g reports to the Governor and Legislature, § 360-h contract authority, § 360-i separability.
The registry is the quiet compliance obligation
Section 360-e would require the ombudsperson to maintain a registry of cooperatives and condominiums statewide, updated annually. That means a covered association would have an annual registration and update duty on top of the fee — a small administrative task, but the first time New York has asked associations to identify themselves to the state as a class.
For a 200-unit co-op the fee is $1,200 a year. For a 3,500-unit complex it is $21,000. The per-unit figure is trivial; the aggregate is not, and it is a new line item in a year when boards are already explaining maintenance increases.
The legislative declaration is worth reading in full
Section 360-a is the bill's own framing, and it is more measured than the justification:
“Unfortunately, disputes have not infrequently arisen among cooperative and condominium sponsors and developers, cooperative shareholders and condominium unit owners, prospective shareholders and unit owners, boards of directors and boards of managers. Such disputes may result in lengthy and costly litigation and uncertainty as to the rights of the parties pending the outcome of litigation. Such litigation diverts resources that could be better utilized to provide affordable and well-maintained buildings and grounds for the common good of the owners.”
The memorandum also makes an observation about New York that explains why the co-op question is distinctive here: “This is particularly true in the case of cooperative buildings since they are governed by the Business Corporation Law which was not designed to regulate residential real estate. Cooperative shareholders are often unaware that they do not own real property, and are considered tenants of the corporation that owns the building where they live.” And: “New York has one of the largest, if not the largest, number of cooperatives and condominiums in the nation.”
Who opposed it
The Community Associations Institute's New York Legislative Action Committee opposed the bill, on the stated ground that the programme “does not align with CAI's Alternative Dispute Resolution Public Policy.” CAI's report notes the bill died in committee. CAI states it advocates on behalf of approximately 3,721,000 New Yorkers living in 1,422,700 homes in more than 14,400 community associations.2
Status and the comparative sidebar
A10286 was referred to Assembly Housing on February 20, 2026 and never moved. S7745 was referred to Senate Housing, Construction and Community Development on May 2, 2025 and re-referred January 7, 2026, and has had no action since.3 The memorandum's own legislative history says simply: “New bill.” Its effective date, per the memorandum: “This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after it becomes law.”
The memorandum cites three states as models, by statute: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.625 et seq., N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 46:8B-13.1 to -16, and Fla. Stat. § 718.5011 et seq. It notes those offices “provide general education to condominium owners and cooperative shareholders, monitor board elections, and offer alternative dispute resolution processes.”
Expect it back. CAI's own first-quarter 2026 recap lists an ombudsperson office among its standing New York priority topics, which is a reasonable indicator that the fight is not over. For now, the practical position for a New York co-op or condo owner in a governance dispute is exactly what the memorandum describes: change the board, or sue. Our pages on mediation and dispute resolution and records inspection cover the tools that do exist.
Related New York HOA Topics
Stay on top of New York HOA law
Every week: new New York legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.