Landlord and Tenant

June 25, 2015

Rent Regulation in New York – The Newest Provisions

A recent article in the New York Times describes a tentative deal in Albany to extend the rent regulation laws in New York. Rent regulation in New York exists not only in New York City, but also in other large cities, such as Yonkers and White Plains. To speak generally, rent regulations usually restrict the amount of rent that a landlord can charge for an apartment. In addition, tenants are usually legally entitled to a one or two year lease renewal, subject to certain restrictions. Landlords are permitted to raise the rent a certain percentage per year, subject to an overall threshold of rent.

The proposed deal in Albany would raise the rent at which an apartment can be “de-regulated” from $2,500.00 per month to $2,700.00 per month. What this means is that apartments which rent for more than $2,700.00 per month would no longer be subject to rent regulation, and landlords would be permitted to charge “market rate” for such apartments. In addition, tenants of a de-regulated apartment would lose their right to a renewal lease at a fixed rate of rent increase. For example, if one rented an apartment for $3,000.00 per month for a two year lease, at the end of the two year term, the landlord would be permitted to raise the rent to whatever amount the market could bear. If the tenant does not want to pay the new rent, they would have to vacate the premises.

Because rent stabilized apartments renting for below $2,500.00 (soon to be $2,700.00) a month are likely to be regulated, the landlord under such a system has an incentive to remove such tenants after their current lease expires. If the tenants vacate, the landlord is permitted a “vacancy increase bonus,” which allows them to increase the rent that a new tenant would pay, to an amount greater than the legally permitted increase for the current tenant’s renewal. For this reason, some landlords will make a cash offers to “buy out” tenants of their rent regulated tenancies. Our firm has handled these situations, representing both landlords and tenants in different transactions regarding such buyouts, and we have discussed the specifics of such buyouts in a prior blog post.

April 16, 2015

Illegal Acts and Evictions in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent gas explosion in Manhattan’s East Village destroyed an entire building, and, more unfortunately, caused the deaths of at least two individuals and injuries to other people who were unlucky to be in the building during the explosion. Of course, the human cost of such a tragedy cannot be measured. This blog post will attempt to explain some of the legal issues that relate to illegal actions on the part of a landlord or a tenant.

Apparently the gas explosion may have been caused by the illegal siphoning of a gas line by the building’s landlord. If this is indeed the case, the landlord would be legally responsible for any injuries caused by the explosion, including the deaths of the individuals. Such legal responsibility be in both the civil and criminal categories. This means that the persons responsible for the illegal siphoning may face charges of criminal negligence, and be subject to arrest and jail time.

In addition, any persons damaged by the explosion may file civil suits seeking money damages for their injuries. This may also include wrongful death actions brought by the legal heirs of those killed in the explosion. A wrongful death suit usually seeks damages in the amount of future earnings by those who may have been legally dependent on the person who died. It is usually brought by a surviving spouse or child of the decedent. Those found to be legally responsible for the death of the individuals in the explosion may have to pay compensation in the amount of estimated lifetime future earnings of the person who died as a result of their negligence.

April 9, 2015

Partition Actions, Occupancy, and Tenants in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

Prior posts on this blog have dealt with the legal issues regarding partition of property. To summarize, a partition action may be brought when a property has two or more owners, and the owners are unable to agree on the disposition of the property. One owner may wish to sell the property to a third party, and another owner may wish to retain the property.

Often, one or more of the co-owners may live at the property in question. Another possibility is that none of the owners live at the property, and are renting the premises to a third party who is not a property owner. This blog post will explore the legal issues regarding tenants and occupancy of a property which may be subject to partition.

The first issue to be examined is where one or more of the owners lives at the property in question. Legally, any owner of the property is entitled to reside at the property if the property is residential in nature. For example, let’s assume a property owner passes away and leaves her house to her three children, each to own a one-third (1/3) share of the property. Under this scenario, any or all of the three children may reside at the house in question. None of the three new owners has a legal right to exclude the others from residing at the property. Of course, this can create problems in a scenario where one owner resides at the property, and the other owners do not. Since the non-resident owners do not have a legal right to evict the owner residing at the property, their main recourse would be a partition action to sell the property to a third party.

March 20, 2015

The Disposition of Housing of the Deceased

By Weiss & Weiss

Many people who pass away also leave behind the place in which they resided. The housing could be a rental apartment, a cooperative or condominium unit, or a house. The deceased may not necessarily have resided in the property immediately before death if they went to assisted living or a nursing home. This blog post will address the legal and practical matters arising from housing of the deceased.

If the person lived in a rental apartment, it remains to be determined whether the rental was rent-regulated or not. A rent-regulated apartment could be either rent controlled or rent stabilized and is generally found in New York City. If a surviving family member wants to continue residing in the rent-regulated apartment, he may wish to allege that he has succession rights and has the legal right to continue to live in the apartment. When the unit is not rent-regulated, the surviving family member may wish to negotiate a surrender of lease and return of any security deposit, in exchange for the prompt removal of the possessions of the deceased. Most landlords do not aggressively pursue eviction in this scenario, if the surviving family member in good faith is acting reasonably efficiently in clearing out the apartment. However, if the death occurred in the apartment and was under gruesome circumstances, the landlord may seek to have out-of-the-ordinary cleaning expenses paid by the family.

When the departed individual lived in a cooperative or condominium apartment, monthly maintenance or common charges will continue to accrue. The representative of the estate should request a delay in the submission of any default notices, pending the representative’s access to assets as needed to make such payments. So long as the cooperative or condominium board is convinced that the representative has duly and promptly applied for Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration, additional time to obtain access to assets will usually be granted. In no event do we recommend that the estate representative pay such charges from her own personal account.

February 12, 2015

Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Landlord-Tenant Actions in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

One of the most frequently asked questions when our firm meets with a new client relates to the awarding of attorney’s fees. Many of our landlord-tenant clients ask us whether they can recover their attorney’s fees in Court from the other party in the litigation. The answer to this question is not a simple one, and this blog post will answer under what circumstances a party may recover their attorney’s fees from the other party, whether in a landlord-tenant litigation, or other type of case.

The general rule in most United States based lawsuits is that all parties pay their own attorney’s fees, regardless of the outcome of the litigation. This is the standard rule in the U.S., although, in other countries, the loser of the litigation is often obligated to pay the attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.

However, the general rule in the U.S., and, more specifically, in New York State, is subject to certain exceptions. Under these exceptions, which we will discuss, the recovery of attorney’s fees from the adversarial side in litigation may sometimes occur. The first exception is when there is a written contract between the parties that allows for the recovery of attorney fees in litigation. For example, a contract clause may state that if a party defaults in their obligations under a contract, and the other party is obligated to bring a Court action to recover damages, and prevails in that action, then they are allowed to recover attorney’s fees. Careful review of any such contract clause would be necessary to determine whether attorney’s fees would be recoverable.

January 8, 2015

Legal Issues Relating to Subtenants in New York State

By Weiss & Weiss

First, we would like to wish all followers of our blog a happy and healthy 2015. We look forward to continued successful legal outcomes for all of our clients in the New Year.

Our copy of Black’s law dictionary defines a subtenant as “one who leases all or part of the rented premises from the original lessee for a term less than that held by the latter.” What this means is that, ordinarily, a tenant rents premises from a landlord, who is usually the owner of the property. The tenant may, in turn, rent her interest as a lessee to another party. That other party is generally known as a subtenant.

Of course, subletting a property to a subtenant creates many legal issues relating to the landlord-tenant relationship, which we will address in this post. The first issue is whether the tenant has the legal right to sublet the space to a subtenant. The answer to this question is usually found in the lease between the landlord and the over-tenant. The lease may expressly forbid subletting. In that case, the over-tenant is in breach of the lease if they sublet the space. In the alternative, the lease may allow subletting, but only with the permission of the landlord. Some leases will state that such permission is “not to be unreasonably withheld.” In such situations, we recommend obtaining the landlord’s consent in writing. That way, there can be no misunderstanding regarding whether the landlord has consented to a subtenant. Finally, the lease may be silent as to subletting. In such instances, courts have generally held that the subletting is not a breach of the lease and can be allowed.

October 24, 2014

Surrender of Lease Agreements in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

Quite often, our firm is consulted by both landlords and tenants regarding the termination of a lease prior to its legal end date. For example, a lease may have a term which runs through December 31, 2020. In certain situations, the parties may agree to terminate the lease prior to this date. This can happen for several reasons. A tenant may need to move out for personal reasons, or because conditions at the premises are not acceptable. A landlord may decide not to hold a tenant to a lease term if they believe they can re-rent the premises at a higher rent. In commercial lease situations, a business renting a store or other commercial space may decide it needs to close for financial reasons, and wants to return the space to the landlord without a legal conflict.

In such situations, we recommend that all parties engage legal counsel to draft a Surrender of Lease agreement. A Surrender of Lease Agreement is a document negotiated between a landlord and a tenant through their legal counsel. It amends the original lease agreement so that the lease term can end at an earlier date than initially contemplated by the parties. There are several important issues which must be negotiated and delineated in such an agreement, which will be discussed in this blog post.

The first issue is the date of the surrender. This is the date that the tenant agrees to vacate the premises and return the keys to the landlord. It is standard that the tenant also agrees to leave the premises in “broom clean” condition and without any major damage, just as it had agreed in the original lease. Our firm often recommends that a tenant hire a professional cleaning service to ensure that there are no issues with the condition of the premises after move-out.

October 3, 2014

Landlords, Tenants, and Pets in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

Our firm is often involved in disputes over pets in rental properties. We have represented tenants who have dogs or cats in their rented apartment or house, and whose landlords claim that this is a violation of their lease. We have also represented landlords who are concerned about potential damage which may be done to their property due to an authorized pet, or who are concerned that renting their condominium or cooperative unit to a pet owner may be a violation of the house rules, subjecting them to penalties. This blog post will discuss the legal issues relating to a pet’s presence in a rental unit, whether an apartment or a private house.

The first issue relates to a pet in a privately owned apartment or house (not a cooperative or condominium unit). In this situation, the lease between the landlord and the tenant usually controls whether a pet is permitted. If the landlord does not want pets present at the property, our attorneys will draft and include lease provisions which will forbid the tenant to have a pet at the premises. A tenant who wishes to have a pet at the premises should make sure that the lease includes a provision in which it specifically states that pets are allowed.

Even if the lease in question does not allow pets, there may be legal loopholes and exceptions to this “pet ban.” The first such exception relates to pets which provide services to individuals with disabilities. New York and federal law prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. Courts have ruled that such protection would apply where an individual with a disability has a companion service animal, such as a seeing-eye dog, at their property. Therefore, such individuals have the right to have an animal, such as a seeing eye dog, at their property, even if their lease prohibits pets.

July 28, 2014

Keeping Landlord-Tenant Disputes Under Control

By Weiss & Weiss

Recently in the news is the rather gruesome story of a woman who was murdered and dismembered. Her body parts were discovered in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Her neighbor was arrested for her murder and is being held without bail. According to the news story, the root of the conflict between the two women appears to have been a landlord-tenant dispute.

The accused murderer, Leah Cuevas, was pretending to be the landlord of the building in which the two women lived, after the actual owner passed away. Ms. Cuevas then attempted to collect the rent from the building’s tenants, and when fellow tenant Chinelle LaToya Thompson Browne refused to pay, she was allegedly murdered by Ms. Cuevas. Of course, most landlord-tenant conflicts do not end in this manner. This blog post will attempt to discuss the legal issues involved, although, as our firm does not generally practice criminal law, we will leave the more graphic issues to the criminal courts.

Often, a situation can arise where a person claims to be the owner and/or landlord of a house or apartment building and demands rent from the tenants. This can happen where the original landlord passes away without a will, or where the building is being foreclosed by a lender. There may be occurrences where a landlord cannot meet the carrying charges on a building, such as the mortgage and utilities, and simply “walks away” from their ownership. If the ownership is in a corporate name, the landlord may not be personally liable for the building’s debts, and does not dispute any foreclosure proceeding that may occur.

July 21, 2014

Access to Building Services in Rental Units in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent news story regarding affordable housing in New York may be of interest to readers of our blog. New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) approved a separate entrance in a proposed new building containing affordable housing units. The building would therefore have two entrances (it is located on a corner lot), one for the luxury units, and one for low-income units that would comprise 55 of the 219 proposed units.

Of course, many people are outraged by this “poor door,” arguing that it imposes a stigma on the low-income renters in the building. Others may argue that separate entrances should be allowed as the price for the builder to include these low-income units, which may not have otherwise been part of the proposed project. Including these low-income units in the project allows the builder to construct an edifice larger than that which would have been allowed if the building only contained luxury units. It also entitles the developer to certain tax breaks for providing “affordable housing” to the residents of New York City.

The issue of whether all residents of communal housing, such as an apartment building, are entitled to share in all of the building’s amenities can create additional legal challenges. A building in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan has an indoor swimming pool, a rare sight in Manhattan. There are several buildings with access to the pool, known as London Terrance Towers and London Terrace Gardens. However, these buildings contain co-op apartments, which are owner-occupied, as well as rent-stabilized units, which are not. Under an expiring agreement, between the landlord of the Gardens buildings and the cooperative corporation, the renters were allowed to use the pool.