TenantNet Forum

Where tenants can seek help and help others



subletting now renting from landlady

Issues unrelated to specific categories below

Moderator: TenantNet

subletting now renting from landlady

Postby sara_s » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:04 pm

Hi,

I am subleasing an apartment from another person that subleases in turn from the landlady. Like me, they do not have a contract or a lease. I was recently talking to the landlady to see if she had another apartment in the area. The landlady asked me how much I was paying for my sublet and we both became very upset when we found out that the first person that subleases directly from her, was charging me 1450, instead of 1100, which is the original rent she asks from her. She told me they had originally told her that a cousin was moving in, not me. She obviously did not know that they were renting it for a higher price, either. I then proposed to rent directly from her, instead of renting from the woman that subleases her the apartment. She then told me to stop paying rent this next month to the people that sublease from her. When they come back (they're abroad renewing their visa), she intends to tell them that she's terminating their sublet. Now, they are also subleasing from her another room next to mine, in which they live most of the time.

Can I stop paying rent next month and start renting directly from the landlady, if the landlady has directed me to stop paying them rent? Even if my verbal contract is with them? We do not know exactly when they're coming back. It is sometime next month.
sara_s
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:48 pm

Postby TenantNet » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:26 pm

When you get a sublet of a sublet, you're asking for problems. Even with rent regulated units (which apparently this is not), it can be a huge mess.

You say "they" do not have a lease, which might mean they are month-to-month. Normally you would be an undertenant, but it's hard to say who has what rights.

For RS units, charging more than allowed can give a sublet cause to file for a rent overcharge, and could endanger the lease of the prime tenant (the allowable would be the legal rent plus certain additions). That's not the case with non-RS units.

As for the LL trying to evict the prime tenant or first sublet, they might have rights, and the LL must use the court process, not change the locks. You should stay out of that mess.

You can withhold rent, but there's always the possibility you might get dragged into the mess. If you pay directly to the LL (for the same room), that would amount to an illegal eviction of the prime tenant and first sublet.

The best thing for you is to rent an empty unit directly from the LL and get out of the mess. Let the LL deal with the others.

I'd also look into if you can get back any overcharge you paid. (although it's not based on RS laws).
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 10311
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Postby sara_s » Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:56 pm

Thank you for your answer.

By first tenant, you mean the first sublet? The landlady is the owner of the apartment and of the building as well. But, still as you say, the first sublet has rights. It is a mess.

What I don't understand is that the owner asked me not to pay for this last month, but she also told me not to pay her. Her argument is that they cannot evict me or press charges because she is the owner. Would it still amount to an eviction of the previous tenant from the landlady? Is she just covering herself? Am I liable? The idea is that my security deposit would cover that last month.
sara_s
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:48 pm

Postby TenantNet » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:07 pm

From what you said above, you have:

1. Landlord who owns the building
2. Prime tenant, either M2M or on a lease
3. First sublet
4. Second sublet -- you.

Your obligation is to pay to the first sublet, who in turn pays to the prime tenant, who then pays the LL.

You can withhold rent, but your LL (the first sublet) might come after you for the rent, or withhold your deposit.

The LL can seek the eviction of the prime tenant, and can also list all "John/Jane Does" who might be undertenants.
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 10311
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Postby sara_s » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:35 pm

There is no prime tenant. That person does not exist. There is no lease at all.

I think the correct status for the first sublet would be a month per month tenant, without a contract. They had told me also that they had no contract with the landlady, they just rent from her each month. They answer directly to the landlady, the owner of the building.

There is only
1. the landlady who deals directly with them and told me herself that she did not lease it with a contract
2.the month per month
3. me

I think it is safer if i just pay rent as I told them I would do and then wait for the landlady to make her move. She is not evicting them. She is just telling them (because its a month per month) that she is renting the apartment to someone else the next month (me). So, I guess, she only has to give them 30 days. But she told me that they will be able to stay in their other apartment next door (they have two apartments, mine and theirs, each is month per month, rented directly from the landlady).
sara_s
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:48 pm

Postby TenantNet » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:56 pm

You gave us incorrect information at the outset. What you call the fist sublet is the prime tenant. By definition, a sublet is a person who is an undertenant of the prime tenant.

But even with this new information, you are a/the (first) sublet of the prime tenant. That's still a mess.

By renting directly to you, that is an eviction of the prime tenant, and illegal without a court process. There has to be notice and a court proceeding if they choose to stay. If a notice was issued today, it would not be effective until March 1.
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 10311
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City


Return to NYC General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests