---

Posted by TenantNet on December 15, 2000 at 15:57:17:

In Reply to: Renewal Rights are the Problem posted by Lurker-Owner on December 15, 2000 at 15:10:20:

They can indeed be a problem under stabilization, but can occur equally under non-regulated units -- because a claim of tenancy rights due to "inadverdent" acceptance of rent is not limited to stabilization. You are right that it sometimes manifests itself in stabilized units, but it's not an "ill" created by stabilization. Although public policy is that "tenants" have a right to renew under stabilization, contractual rights are always present.

The "problem" is created by the inadverdant creation of a landlord-tenant relationship -- a contract issue. Yes, you can undo the impact in non-regulated units simply because there is no automatic right to renew, as you indicate. But there are a number of instances where it can occur outside of stabilization, i.e., squatting, adverse possession and retaliatory claims.

Our point is that it is a gray area, always dependent on specific facts. But it is not a reason to trash regulation.

: Actually, renewal rights under stabilization _are_ the problem with taking roommate checks. In a free market apartment, I'm not really concerned about creating a landlord-tenant relationship with the roommate. At the end of the lease, I can set the rent without regard to the RGB order or terminate the relationship (which when I do is usually because of objectionable conduct that doesn't rise to the high NYC level of nuisance).

: If the apartment is stabilized, however, after creating a l-t relationship with the roommate, the roommate can renew even if the original tenant vacates. I'm stuck with the roommate even though he didn't go through the regular screening process. This would also seem to apply in a Paikoff coop in the second department.

: In short, Ken is more right than he was given credit for.

Follow Ups:

• Re: Renewal Rights are the Problem Lurker-Owner 12/15/00 (0)

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: They can indeed be a problem under stabilization, but can occur equally under non-regulated units -- because a claim of tenancy rights due to "inadverdent" acceptance of rent is not limited to stabilization. You are right that it sometimes manifests itself in stabilized units, but it's not an "ill" created by stabilization. Although public policy is that "tenants" have a right to renew under stabilization, contractual rights are always present.

: The "problem" is created by the inadverdant creation of a landlord-tenant relationship -- a contract issue. Yes, you can undo the impact in non-regulated units simply because there is no automatic right to renew, as you indicate. But there are a number of instances where it can occur outside of stabilization, i.e., squatting, adverse possession and retaliatory claims.

: Our point is that it is a gray area, always dependent on specific facts. But it is not a reason to trash regulation.

: 
: : Actually, renewal rights under stabilization _are_ the problem with taking roommate checks.  In a free market apartment, I'm not really concerned about creating a landlord-tenant relationship with the roommate.  At the end of the lease, I can set the rent without regard to the RGB order or terminate the relationship (which when I do is usually because of objectionable conduct that doesn't rise to the high NYC level of nuisance).

: : If the apartment is stabilized, however, after creating a l-t relationship with the roommate, the roommate can renew even if the original tenant vacates.  I'm stuck with the roommate even though he didn't go through the regular screening process.  This would also seem to apply in a Paikoff coop in the second department.

: : In short, Ken is more right than he was given credit for.


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---