I entered into a joint lease for an apartment in the East Village (rent-regulated w standard rider) with a roommate (both of us named prime tenants on lease). All of a sudden we get a letter from the leasing agency mandating our floors be covered 80% with carpeting at our expense which adversely impacts our budget.
Here are the facts, narrative and legal questions in brief:
-After indicating interest in a unit, the agency required a $500 non-refundable holding deposit to take the unit off the market, a $100 application fee and one-month's rent as a security deposit PRIOR to unveiling the official lease text. I insisted on pre-viewing an unofficial copy of the lease or any relevant literature with more depth on the terms and was denied the opportunity. I had to pay the demanded costs firsts before I could see the lease text! Red flag.
-Prior to paying, I diligently inquired on all implicit or explicit costs of occupancy, redundantly, with the leasing agent and broker. The 80% carpeting mandate was never disclosed
-With my requests to review a draft/voided/unofficial text of the lease prior to submitting their demanded deposit funds denied, I took a calculated risk as a reasonable person would do in relying upon their prior representations of occupancy costs and that these representations would remain constant in the official lease terms ex post payment.
-The lease was over 47,000 words long and, having a busy job, did the best I could to review it thoroughly under the tight time constraint the provided before the holding period expired... although clearly with such volume of text the carpeting mandate escaped me and we signed it.
-Months later out of nowhere we get a letter that our unit is scheduled for inspection for compliance on the carpeting clause. I sent a letter to the leasing office that that we are disputing this mandate as it burdens our budget.
Question: Would a court find this clause enforceable when it was was never disclosed ex ante, my requests to review the lease prior to payment were denied, and this clause only became legible under this hostage deadlock tactic of "pay to read first" where nonrefundable deposit costs were demanded in their custody before I could view the lease?
What laws, precedents or legal dynamics are relevant here and to what extent are any such clauses enforceable granted an applicant was required to pay a non-refundable deposit to see the terms first, with no ex ante disclosure of ex post implicit material required costs of occupancy?
Thanks!!