Posted by New York Tenant on June 30, 2001 at 10:13:45:
In Reply to: Re: Ramm v Mazzola posted by JJ on June 29, 2001 at 22:40:26:
In an article in the real estate section, The New York Times didn't understand the limited significance of a decision on a tenant's pre-answer motion to dismiss.
Despite the headline in The Times article, the housing court judge didn't rule that the tenant could be evicted. I'm sure the tenant's attorney will be challenging the legal basis for DHCR's new regulation about how much rent a tenant can charge a roommate. Even if the regulation is held to be vaild, the question of the remedies for the landlord and for the roommate remains.
Can the landlord evict the tenant? DHCR's final regulations -- as opposed to its proposed regulations -- would seem to indicate that the tenant can't be evicted.
Can the roommate recover the overcharges, or even treble damages?
Will the regulation be applicable to existing roommate agreements? In the Ram 1 case, this particular roommate agreement was entered into after the effective date of the new DHCR regulation.
RAM 1 LLC v. MAZZOLA:
You can sign up for a free trial subscription to the New York Law Journal to read this decision and other NYLJ content.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup