How buildings are scored.

TWO SYSTEMS

Composite score vs. forensic grade.

CondosCoopsNYC uses two complementary scoring systems, each designed for a different purpose.

FORENSIC GRADE

The audit-report grading system.

The forensic grade used in Level 2 and Level 3 audit reports is a richer, more granular system. It starts from per-unit-normalized density thresholds to assign a base letter, then shifts the letter downward based on specific governance triggers found in the building's record. The result is a letter (A through F) with a sub-tier (1-10) that captures position within the letter.

Step 1: Base grade from density

Three per-unit-normalized metrics determine the starting letter. All three conditions must be met for a letter; if any is exceeded, the building falls to the next tier.

Base	Class C per 100 units	Total HPD per 100 units	ECB fines per 100 units
A	0	< 5	< $1,000
B	≤ 1	< 20	< $10,000
C	≤ 3	< 50	< $50,000
D	Everything else. D is the worst grade density alone can produce.

Density alone cannot produce an E or F. Those grades require specific governance triggers beyond raw violation counts.

Step 2: Auto-shift triggers

Auto-shift triggers are severe findings that each push the grade down by one full letter. These are conditions where the city or a court has formally flagged the building or its management:

• AEP worst-buildings list. NYC HPD has designated this building for the Alternative Enforcement Program, the city's official worst-buildings registry.
• Active vacate order(s). The city has ordered residents to leave the building due to unsafe conditions.
• Public Advocate Worst Landlord Watchlist. The NYC Public Advocate has publicly named this building's landlord among the 100 worst in the city.
• >5 Class C violations in 12 months. A pattern of immediately hazardous conditions, not a one-time event.
• ≥3 HPD housing-court judgments entered. Courts have formally ruled against the landlord on multiple cases.
• ≥5 DOB high-severity violations (live). Unsafe Building, Immediate Emergency, or fail-to-certify violations that have not been dismissed.
• Active condo-board v. sponsor litigation. The board's own governance has broken down to the point of suing the sponsor.
• ≥3 unit-owner v. board lawsuits. Chronic resident dissatisfaction adjudged worth filing.

Step 3: Downgrade triggers

Downgrade triggers are less severe than auto-shifts but still material. Every two downgrade triggers push the grade down by one letter. This prevents a building with several mild issues from cascading all the way to E on minor signals alone.

• Facade classified UNSAFE under LL11
• LL84 non-compliant (qualifies but no filing)
• Projected LL97 annual fine > $50,000
• Year-over-year HPD violations rapidly worsening (recent > 2× prior)
• Managing agent has AEP building(s) in CCNYC portfolio
• LL97 subject but no DOB NOW compliance filing on record
• ≥3 ACRIS lis pendens / litigation liens on master lot
• Post-HSTPA unusual DHCR deregulation year(s)
• LL97 emissions intensity ≥130% of building-class peer median
• Managing-agent portfolio distress rate ≥30%
• Federal litigation case(s) on file
• Active unit foreclosure(s) in NYSCEF
• HPD complaint-category concentration ≥60%
• Historical sponsor-dispute case(s)

Step 4: Sub-tier assignment (1-10)

Within each letter (A through E), a sub-tier from 1 to 10 captures position. 1 is the best within that letter (barely in it); 10 is the worst (one step from the next-worse letter). The sub-tier is derived from the total trigger count: auto-shift triggers count as 2 points each, downgrades count as 1 point each.

Step 5: Catastrophic override (F)

Grade F is reserved for buildings where the city has flagged life-safety conditions or where multiple severe failures fire simultaneously with no clear recovery path. F is not reachable through the normal downgrade path. It requires:

• Any active vacate order (the city has ordered residents out), or
• 4 or more auto-shift triggers firing simultaneously, or
• 3 auto-shift triggers plus 4 or more downgrade triggers (multi-axis collapse).

F has no sub-tier. It is the bottom of the scale.

RISK DASHBOARD

Per-dimension severity scoring (0-100).

In addition to the composite letter grade, every audit report includes a Risk Dashboard: a set of horizontal severity bars, one per governance dimension, each scored 0-100. The dashboard shows where the risk concentrates. A building might have a clean HPD record but severe LL97 exposure, or vice versa.

Each dimension's score is computed from its own input data, normalized to fit a 0-100 scale using dimension-specific calibration. The normalization ensures that a score of 50 means "meaningfully elevated" and 80+ means "severe" across every dimension, regardless of the underlying unit of measurement.

Dimension	Input	Normalization
HPD violations (total)	Total violations per 100 units	Linear scale, 200 per 100 units = 100
Class C (immediately hazardous)	Class C per 100 units	Linear scale, 30 per 100 units = 100
ECB/OATH fines	Fines per 100 units ($)	Linear scale, $200K per 100 units = 100
Emergency Repair Orders	ERP count	40 + (count × 15), any ERP is significant
Facade (LL11)	FISP status	SAFE = 15, SWARMP = 55, UNSAFE = 90
Sidewalk-shed presence	Continuous years	30 / 55 / 80 by 1-2 / 3-4 / 5+ year span
LL97 emissions compliance	Filing status	Subject but no filing = 75; on file = 20
LL84 energy benchmarking	ENERGY STAR score	Score ≥75 = 10; filed = 30; non-compliant = 70
AEP worst-buildings	On list?	On list = 100; not on list = 5
HPD-initiated litigation	Case count	30 + (count × 15)
Reserve-fund adequacy	Visible spend ratio	≥80% funded = 15; ≥40% = 55; below = 80
Vacate orders	Active orders	Any active order = 100; none = 0
Rent stabilization	Stabilized unit share	≥30% share = 45; >0 = 20; none = 5

LIMITATIONS

What the grade does not measure.

• Interior apartment condition. HPD violations and DOB filings describe common-area and building-system conditions. They do not inspect individual apartments unless a complaint is filed.
• Management quality beyond public record. A building with a competent managing agent who resolves issues before they become violations will score better. That is by design. But responsiveness, communication quality, and resident satisfaction are not measured.
• Financial health. Reserve-fund adequacy is modeled from visible capital spend, not from audited financial statements (which are not public in New York). The model is a floor estimate, not a precise measurement.
• Board governance quality. Whether board meetings are held, whether minutes are distributed, whether conflicts of interest are managed. None of this is captured in any public dataset.
• Market value or investment potential. The grade measures governance and compliance, not price trajectory or rental yield.

See the grades in action.

Browse the full graded catalog or request an audit report for a specific building.