Google Search

TenantNet Forum Archives 1996-2002
Posting and Replies are disabled in all Archives
TenantNet Forum | TenantNet Forum Archives Index

Re: Mysterious activity

Posted by Shelley on March 07, 1999 at 12:02:00:

In Reply to: Re: Mysterious activity posted by Mark Smith on March 07, 1999 at 08:56:43:

Forgive my indulging myself, but it's exciting to think that there are a couple of issues here, then. Wonder if tenants en mass, could bark up one or the other of these trees and band together 'cross this city, even interest legal representation that is sympatico? Legal IS the way to go, the game to play is it not?

First, the foundational, legal issue of the landlord being remis in his having to notify all tenants of co-op/condo plan.

Then the disparity between the new type of tenant and the information THEY are getting would have to be a soft spot that is worthy of investigation. This would have to be somewhat deliberate/conspiratorial on the part of the landlord, or some representative agency or both, even extraneous investors (what a protraction!) The tenant then, in some or all cases, becomes a VICTIM, transient or not, unless the transient/temp tenant is engaged with the obvious intent to conspire.

Then the older tenant becomes a victim, obvious in those cases where the complication of noise, used as an annoyance, is wielded as an ousting tool by those transients who are suspect and possibly/obviously working for the landlord or concerned parties or representatives be they real estate agencies etc. (somewhere within these TenantNet pages is a person who makes mention of coexistance as an inforceable issue.) And as we persue this, more angles appear.

: : Thank you, Mark, but just for my own edification, how can a co-op or condo be in name only?

: A landlord/sponsor files an offering plan ("red herring") with the Attorney General. There are no reduced prices to encourage insiders (tenants living in the building) to purchase apartments. Instead, the landlord/sponsor sells the minimum 15% of the apartments to outsiders, and the building officially becomes a co-op or condo. But apartments are not sold as they become vacant. They are rented, but not with rent stabilized increases. Because the building is officially a co-op or condo, the landlord/sponsor can rent vacant apartments for what the market will bear, with no possible challenge of the rent to DHCR or anywhere else. A recent court case has held that, when a tenant whose initial market-rent lease expires, the landlord/sponsor must renew it at a reasonable increase. But the tenant will have to go to housing court if the tenant and landlord/sponsor can't agree on what is a reasonable increase. And someone who rents from an investor who purchased a co-op or condo apartment in the building (other than the landlord/sponsor) has no protection at all for reasonable rent increases after the initial market-rent lease expires.

: :
: : : A landlord can't secretly turn a building into a co-op or a condo. There has to be an offering plan filed with the Attorney General, and copies have to be served on the tenants. Before there can be co-op or condo, the Attorney General has to pass on the offering plan. If it is going to be a real co-op or condo, the landlord will generally offer a discounted insider price to the tenants living there.

: : : If it is going to a co-op or condo in name only, the landlord will sell the minimum number of apartments to outsiders, with no incentive for insiders to purchase. Then, as apartments become vacant, the landlord can rent them for as much as the market will bear, without making any improvements.

: : :
: : : : I am a rent stabilized tenant, and have lived in Manhattan for many years at this address. Lately, I've noticed odd and suspicious activity that leaves me wondering if the landlord is up to something. People, mostly young but seemingly afluent individuals have been witnessed by myself and others, entering the apartments of tenants who are relatively new to this building. Tenants we strongly suspect, but do not know how to prove are planted here by the landlord. These individuals always seem very nervous, especially when they are entering an apartment that is adjacent to an older tenant. These apartments are usually, over the time the newer tenants are installed, problematic for a time in some way or the other.

: : : : My mind has been thinking overtime lately, especially after reading these pages. Forgive my rather naive question, but can landlords sell units in a partly rent controlled building without notifying the older tenants? Could our landlord be clandestinely co-oping whatever apartments he controls? If this is a common practice, is it legal? If not, what can be done to stop it, legally or to force his hand and make him come clean? Am I way off base here? Any discussion on this topic would be well appreciated. Thank you, Shelley.

Follow Ups:

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 
Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL:


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information | Contact Us
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws |

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name