Posted by Matthew Rice on July 16, 1998 at 11:35:08:
A question about a rent stabilized Manhattan
When I signed my current lease in August
1997 the increase was calculated as the
7% increase from the (then) current Order
(No. 28 I think) and an additional 20% as
the new vacancy allowance. For a total of
27% for a 1 year lease.
If you recall, this is the period between the
introduction of the 20% vacancy increase and
the new order, no 29.
At the time I though that this was a generous
reading of the laws, but could find no clear
guide to say that this was wrong. (I felt
that only 20% should have been added, and
perhaps only as much as 18%)
I have periodically made enquiries to many
places as to whether this increase was legal
but have never found an answer. At one stage
I gained the impression that the practice of
the landlord taking the "best of both worlds"
while the rent laws were in flux was being
challenged in court.
Can anyone give me some idea about the legal
vacancy increase during the period 19th June
to 1st Oct 1997 or tell me where I might find
I have read
which seem so indicate that the increase
applied to my lease was too great.
(BTW, there were no capital improvements or any
increase due to a long continuous occupancy.)
I am looking for some guidance on the law here,
eg, a decision by a judge on a similar case
or a statement clearly indicating the allowed
increase in this period.
Thanks for your time.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup