New York Real Estate Lawyers Blog

October 24, 2014

Surrender of Lease Agreements in New York

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 17, 2014

Have Your Home Improvements Been Properly Permitted?

By Weiss & Weiss

Often in a residential real estate transaction, unpermitted improvements to a house are present. The seller may find that purchasers are unwilling to enter a transaction with these conditions. The buyer may not want the responsibility for obtaining permits for work done by others. Our clients who are parties to residential real estate transactions often encounter legal issues when home improvements are not properly documented by the municipality where the property is located.

When a renovation is conducted, an inquiry should be made of the municipality as to whether a building permit is needed and application should be made for such a permit if required. The building inspector should review the work in progress to confirm that it is conducted according to the permit and once completed will issue a certificate of compliance or completion. This process insures that all work is done according to current building code and that licensed professionals conduct the work. Building permits and documents evidencing completed construction in accordance with the building permit, as memorialized in a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance, are necessary to protect both parties to transactions in New York State for the reasons to be discussed in this blog post.

A great deal of the housing stock in New York is aged, being originally constructed several decades ago. If a house was constructed eighty (80) years ago, a certificate of occupancy would have been issued authorizing the home’s use as a one or two family house. There is also the possibility that the house is so old that it pre-dated the requirements for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In that case, the town will issue a letter that there is no certificate of occupancy on file because the construction pre-dated the requirement.

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.

September 26, 2014

How Your Cooperative or Condominium Board Benefits from Hiring an Attorney

By Weiss & Weiss

Attorneys provide valuable legal services on behalf of cooperative and condominium boards. Some buildings with fewer than ten units and without disputes have managed without an attorney representing the board. Other buildings may continue with the attorney who originally represented the sponsor. The purpose of this blog post is to describe the services that can be provided by an attorney representing a cooperative or condominium board.

Transfers of apartments will occur at some point. It is not unusual for the building’s managing agent to conduct closings. While many managing agents conduct a variety of tasks and are indispensible to the building, their knowledge is largely operational and particularly relevant to the physical plant of the building. Attorneys are properly situated to evaluate legal situations presented before and during a closing. For instance, after a shareholder dies, the family may wish to transfer the apartment to a family member or sell the apartment to a third party. A managing agent is not the best person to evaluate whether the seller/transferor has delivered the proper documents. Does a managing agent know to ask for a Will to make sure that the deceased did not bequeath the apartment to a friend? It may be a mistake with potential legal liability to the cooperative if the apartment is transferred to a purchaser rather than to the friend. Can the managing agent properly review the Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration to confirm that they are valid to pass the apartment in question? Sometimes estate documents could even be presented from other jurisdictions, requiring a trained legal practitioner to evaluate. The managing agent may mistakenly approve a power of attorney or affidavit of lost stock certificate and proprietary lease that is invalid for some reason, fail to obtain original documents that are necessary for the cooperative to hold, or fail to collect fees on behalf of the building. A variety of issues may be encountered by a transfer agent at a closing which require the judgment and discretion of the building’s attorneys. In this instance, our firm charges the parties to the transaction only, so that engaging our services to be the transfer agent for closings does not cost the building as a whole and potentially benefits the building as a whole by avoiding legal liability.

Cooperatives and condominiums should also engage an attorney for occasional but significant legal events, such as the refinance of the underlying mortgage of a cooperative or the negotiation of a major contract. Such a major contract could pertain to the replacement of windows, renovation of the elevator, or installation of a new roof. Vendor contracts, such as for the laundry room equipment or oil delivery company require review by the building’s attorney because they will contain provisions that are only favorable to the vendor. Since managing agents may have professional relationships with some of these vendors, it may be prudent for “checks and balances” purposes for the building attorney to review these vendor contracts. Certainly an experienced attorney will be in the position of offering terms that are beneficial to the building that an untrained eye may miss.

September 12, 2014

Estate Proceedings for Property Located “Elsewhere”

By Weiss & Weiss

People are leading increasingly complicated lives, in that they spend their time in several locales, some of which may not be their place of residence. If a person is fortunate, they may develop an affection for a particular area and buy a second home in such area. Likewise, they may inherit a beloved family home in a location where they do not live. When such a person passes away, the disposition of all of their property, no matter where located, must be addressed. The question to be explored in this blog post is which Court has jurisdiction over which property.

If a person dies with a Will, the legal proceeding would be entitled a Probate proceeding. If there is no Will, the legal proceeding is called an Administration proceeding. How does a person know where a Probate or Administration proceeding should be brought if a person owned property and even lived in several locations?

Venue is the legal term for the proper location of a legal proceeding. The Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act defines venue as the county of domicile at the time of death. Generally, proper venue for an estate proceeding will be the county identified as the residence of the deceased on the death certificate. Common sense rules also dictate. If a person owned a home, worked, socialized, or paid taxes in a particular area, then venue would be proper in that county and the estate proceeding should be filed in the same county.

September 5, 2014

Standards for Purchasers of New York Cooperative Apartments

By Weiss & Weiss

Our readers may be familiar with a cooperative apartment building located in Manhattan by the name of River House. This building is known not only for its distinctive classic architecture and regal location, but also by its stringent admissions standards for purchasers. It has been well known throughout the New York real estate community that the River House has declined the purchase applications of numerous famous people and persons with seemingly substantial assets. This culture has resulted in apartments being listed for sale for years, because potential purchasers cannot get approved by the board. Overly rigorous standards hurt all residents, as apartments will not sell as readily. The New York Times reported that the River House has recently relaxed some of its admissions standards.

As we have discussed in a previous blog post , a purchase of a cooperative apartment in New York is subject to the approval of the board of directors. If the board declines the purchase, it will not proceed. Legally, a board can reject a purchaser for any reason, so long as the denial is not for discriminatory reasons. In another blog post , we advise cooperative clients to treat all shareholders equally.

The governing case on the matter of decisions by cooperative boards is Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp. This case stands for the principle that cooperative boards, like corporations, are governed by the business judgment rule. So long as there is a legitimate purpose to the decision of a cooperative board and such decision is beneficial to the shareholders as a whole, the decision of the board will stand and will not be subject to judicial review. Boards acting in good faith and in the exercise of their honest judgment are insulated from judicial review of their decision. The business judgment rule is limited by arbitrary or malicious acts of board members, favoritism and discrimination. For instance, a board can legally decline a purchaser if it does not like the person, but cannot legally decline the applicant because they want to retaliate against a seller that they do not like, or because the candidate happens to be Hispanic. Of course, proving that the denial was based predominantly upon an illegal reason may be difficult.

August 11, 2014

Beware the Evil Stepmother

By Weiss & Weiss

Evil stepmothers are not only found in popular culture, as epitomized in Cinderella . Such persons are commonly the subject of events reported by the New York press. Estate conflicts often arise between children of a prior marriage and a more current spouse. Such persons inherently have potentially differing interests. The new spouse may have been attracted to the parent because of the parent’s financial success. The child may be resentful that their parent has decided to remarry.

For instance, Casey Kasem was a beloved radio personality whose end of life was dominated by a battle between his children from a prior marriage and his second wife. Most of the disputes between the parties involved end of life care as well as an unsavory argument over burial arrangements. Mr. Kasem did the prudent thing and had the equivalent of a living will and health care proxy prepared for him, instructing his caretakers to remove life support mechanisms if his prognosis was such that he would not survive on his own. Because his second wife refused to follow his written instructions, his daughters had to petition to a Court for an order requiring the medical facility to respect his wishes. In order to make the best effort to allow for last wishes to be observed, we suggest that our clients allow us to prepare a living will and health care proxy for them and to make same available to medical providers. These documents can instruct that life sustaining mechanisms be left on or terminated, as our client desires. Further, making funeral arrangements and pre-paying for same is another way to make sure that one’s end of life wishes will be respected.

The New York Post also recently reported a dispute between a famous Broadway producer’s son from a prior marriage, his grandchildren, and his fifth wife. The fifth wife allegedly depleted the estate by spending large sums on herself and for purposes that suited her prior to her husband’s death. If the money was held in a joint account with her husband, this spending, even if excessive by some standards, is legal. The Broadway producer should not have had joint assets with his fifth wife. Another method to be used to protect and preserve the assets for the intended beneficiaries would have been to establish a trust, preferably an inter vivos trust in this instance, with anyone besides the stepmother being the trustee. We have written extensively on trusts in prior blog posts . Certainly, one of these types of trusts would have protected assets for the grandchildren.

August 4, 2014

Elmo (and others) in Times Square: The Legal Issues

By Weiss & Weiss

In the news are stories concerning costumed characters in Times Square. For those who have not visited the center of New York City lately, individuals dressed up as Elmo, Super Mario, and Spider-Man, and others have been congregating in Times Square. They entertain tourists, and many people like to have their pictures taken with them. Unfortunately, some of these “characters” have become aggressive, demanding money from tourists for having their photos taken, and recently, “Spider-Man” has been arrested for an altercation with a New York City police officer.

New York City officials are now considering their options regarding licensing these individuals and imposing other legal restrictions on them. Legally, there are several issues in play. The right of any individual to congregate in a public place and to ask others for money may be protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of assembly from governmental restriction. Of course, there may be reasonable limitations placed on such freedoms, especially where it may interfere with the safety of others. Previous court decisions in New York have ruled that the right to ask others for money in a public place constitutes freedom of speech and cannot be considered criminal behavior.

Another legal issue is the whether the right to appear in public as certain characters from fiction is an infringement upon the owners of those characters. The legal rights to both the names and appearances of many of the characters appearing in Times Square, such as Elmo and Spider-Man, are owned by large corporations. The costumes, names, and persona of these characters are protected by legal trademarks. This means that no one can generally use these characters for commercial purposes without the consent of the trademark holder. Such consent usually also involves payment of royalties to the trademark owner.

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.