Local Law 58 gave co-op boards a 45-day deadline. The bill that would have given buyers financial records did not advance.

Local Law 58 of 2026 took effect July 28. It set a 15-day acknowledgment window and a 45-day decision clock for NYC co-op boards with ten or more units, enforced by HPD with fines starting at $1,000. In the same Council session, members heard two bills that would have given the buyer (rather than the board) a new right. One of them, Int. 426-2026 ("Financial Information for Prospective Purchasers"), was not scheduled for a floor vote. The Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums published a formal legislative scorecard in July 2026 opposing the bill. Its stated reason: requiring financial information for buyers "increases cost and liability by requiring potentially complex legal interpretations."

Three bills, one outcome.

The City Council has returned to co-op transparency legislation in several consecutive sessions. The package that produced Local Law 58 included three distinct bills addressing different parts of the purchase process.

Int. 1120-B set strict timelines for board review of purchase applications. The Council passed it, Mayor Adams vetoed it, and the Council overrode the veto on January 29, 2026. The law took effect July 28, 2026, and applies to every cooperative corporation with ten or more units. Condominiums are exempt.

Int. 0774-2026 would have required co-op boards to provide a written explanation when they reject a purchase application. The bill was not scheduled for a floor vote and was later reintroduced in the current Council session without advancing.

Int. 426-2026 would have required sellers to give prospective buyers financial information about the building before a purchase agreement is signed. The bill was not scheduled for a floor vote. The Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums filed a formal opposition, which is now public in its 2026 legislative scorecard.

What Int. 426-2026 would have required.

The bill's title in the CNYC scorecard is "Financial Information for Prospective Purchasers." Its scope covers what a seller must give a buyer before signing, specifically financial information about the building or cooperative corporation. CNYC's filed position does not characterize the bill as technically flawed or legally infeasible. Its objection is cost and liability: giving buyers financial information about the building "increases cost and liability by requiring potentially complex legal interpretations."

That framing is worth reading carefully. What CNYC identifies as a "cost" is the work of producing financial information that a buyer would use to evaluate the building before committing to a purchase. What it identifies as "liability" is the risk that a buyer could use that information to claim they were misled. In other words, the industry's objection to buyer disclosure is that it creates a record against which sellers and boards can be held.

The existing CCNYC post Manhattan luxury co-ops outsold new-development condos last week. Buyers have no statutory right to the books before signing. documents what buyers currently lack: two years of financial statements, the most recent reserve study, and the building's pending assessment schedule. Int. 426-2026 would have changed that. It did not advance.

What CNYC represents and what its opposition reflects.

The Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums represents the interest of co-op and condo buildings in New York City, specifically their boards, managing agents, and the attorneys and vendors who service them. The organization files testimony, tracks legislation, and publishes an annual scorecard rating bills by its members' preferences.

In the 2026 scorecard, CNYC marks Int. 426-2026 as a bill it opposes. The same scorecard identifies bills it supports, including a proposal to consolidate the Local Law 84 and Local Law 97 reporting requirements into a single submission, which would reduce the administrative burden on boards. CNYC supports making compliance less expensive for buildings. CNYC opposes making information more available to buyers.

This is not an accusation. It is a description of the two positions, documented in the organization's own published materials. The pattern it describes is the same one CCNYC has mapped from the state level: when a bill reduces a board's or agent's administrative burden, it finds sponsors and advances. When a bill gives buyers information, it encounters opposition from the organizations representing those boards and agents, and it does not advance.

What a buyer can access today.

The NY Attorney General's "Before You Buy a Co-op or Condo" page describes what prospective buyers are currently entitled to see. For co-op purchases, the AG's guidance covers the offering plan (for buildings originally converted to co-op ownership), the proprietary lease, and the house rules. It does not include a right to see the most recent audited financial statements, the reserve fund balance, or any pending assessments before a buyer signs the purchase agreement.

New York Real Property Law §461 explicitly excludes cooperative apartments and condominium units from the Property Condition Disclosure Act, which applies to most other residential sales in the state. A co-op seller is not required to disclose building condition, maintenance history, or financial health before the buyer signs. That exclusion has been in place since the PCDA's enactment and has not been amended.

The result: a buyer purchasing a co-op apartment is signing a contract for an ownership interest in a corporation whose financial condition they have no statutory right to inspect in advance. The bylaws may entitle them to see financial statements once they are a shareholder. They cannot compel access to those records as a precondition of the purchase decision.

The city version of the Albany pattern.

The ten condo reform bills that did not advance at Albany all involved the state legislature. The three-bill co-op package in the City Council is a parallel at the local level. In both arenas, the bills that create new obligations for boards and agents — disclosure duties, certification requirements, licensure — encounter organized industry opposition and do not advance. The bills that reduce administrative burden or formalize existing board powers move more easily.

CNYC's 2026 scorecard is publicly available and runs to several pages of bill-by-bill positions. It is a primary source for understanding which legislative outcomes the industry intends to produce and which it intends to prevent. The buyer financial disclosure bill is in the second column.

The NY Senate passed S7541, the condo transparency bill requiring sellers to disclose engineering reports and inspection records, 58 to 1 in June 2025. The Assembly bill's sponsor withdrew before a floor vote. At the state level, the disclosure requirement reached a Senate vote and lost in the Assembly. At the city level, Int. 426-2026 was not scheduled for a vote at either stage. The scope of the gap is consistent; the venue changes.

Bottom line.

Local Law 58 gave NYC co-op applicants a 45-day clock. It did not give them a right to see the building's finances before signing. The bill that would have done that, Int. 426-2026, did not advance, and the industry group that represents boards and managing agents filed a formal opposition citing cost and liability. The liability CNYC identifies is the same thing buyers need: a financial record against which they can evaluate a purchase. When an industry opposes transparency because transparency creates accountability, the gap between what buyers need and what they have is not an oversight. It is a position.

Primary sources: CNYC 2026 Co-op/Condo Legislative Scorecard (July 22, 2026); NYC Council veto override press release (Jan. 29, 2026); NY AG "Before You Buy a Co-op or Condo"; NY Real Property Law §461 (PCDA exemption for co-op and condo units).

Companion resources: NYC gave co-op buyers a deadline. It did not give them the books. · Manhattan luxury co-ops: buyers have no statutory right to the books. · Ten condo reform bills that did not advance. · Why the AG can't help with most condo governance disputes. · Blog index