Rent stabilization issue

[love_ny12]

Hi,

Looking for some guidance.

Early 1900s brownstone with 18 units. Rent at the start of my lease was $1800 in 2013. This unit has never had the rent above $1800. My lease makes no mention of stabilization or preferential rent, it's just a "standard lease". I know there are three rent controlled apartments in the building but i'm not sure of stabilization status of any other units. I checked the DHCR list and my building doesn't come up.

Now for the interesting part.. new owner has given me 30 days to leave (so they can renovate the unit). I have been month-to-month for the last two years because the previous owner did not provide lease renewals. Is it possible I may be stabilized and have some rights?

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks

[TenantNet]

It sounds like you might be subject to rent stabilization, but you should look further.

You say the unit has never had rent above $1800, but you really don't know the entire history, do you? First, request from DHCR a rent history going back to 1984. If the building and apartments were ever registered, they would have the information. What list did you check?

Talk to your neighbors. See what they say about all this. You need to do some real research here.

How do you know there are rent control units in the building? Are you sure they are RC and not RS? Many people confuse the two.

Until you get some determinative information, I would not move. Did the owner give you notice in writing? Exactly when was the written notice delivered to you? Assuming you are not RS, if the notice was given to you after Oct. 1st, then the 30 days isn't up until December 1st.

But that's if you are really month-2-month. I would operate - for now - under the assumption that there might be some rent stab rights here. Depending on what you find, I would then file a complaint with DHCR on the rent stab status.

You might consider getting a consultation from a tenant attorney ... not just any attorney, but one who specializes in DHCR issues. Your average lawyer above the deli on the corner, or the lawyer someone knows from their personal injury case .. is not the lawyer to see. But I would hold off on the lawyer until you get better information.

[love_ny12]

Thanks for the quick reply.

You say the unit has never had rent above $1800, but you really don't know the entire history, do you?

Not full history but previous tenant was also paying $1800. I'll need to request the full history but I think it's a safe bet it was never much higher if at all.

What list did you check?

http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/zip.html "Rent Stabilized Building Listings"

How do you know there are rent control units in the building? Are you sure they are RC and not RS?

I did not specifically ask these neighbors but they have been in the building since the 60's.

[TenantNet]

That list - along with other similar lists - can really only be general guides. You really need to get the rent history and check with DHCR. Even then there may be things that DHCR looked over.

[love_ny12]

Bad news.. I have the rent history report and it looks like the previous owner got the apt permanently exempt in 2002. The last regulated rent was $900.

Not sure if there is a next step to take but DHCR pretty much told me there is nothing I can do. The exemption occurred too long ago to fight.

[TenantNet]

Does it say why the unit was permanently exempt (is that what it actually says?)? That's what the LL claims - and not necessarily a determination by DHCR. A permanent exemption is often for owner occupancy or simething similar. Deregulation is something else entirely.

As to being too long ago to fight, well not necessarily so. The four-year statute of limitations applies only to the level of rent, not the rent stabilzation status. DHCR should know that.

I would consider getting a consultation from a good tenant attorney. Filing a complaint with DHCR might put off a court case if the LL intends on evicting you, but that presupposes you have some merit for the complaint.

Also watch for the Altman case that is still pending an appeal in the higher courts. If upheld, it might change how DHCR has been deregulating units going back many years. We can't say that will save you, but it's something to watch.

So that leaves you with a lot of maybe's. Not too reassuring, but if you want to fight it, then there might be a hook.

[love_ny12]

I should have mentioned, the rent history says PE in 2002 and on that line it says "Improve"

Looks like he got it bumped to 2k legal regulated rent which took it off stabilization. DHCR told me that no renovation records are required so it would be tough to fight.

I may reach out to an attorney before I give up hope but it doesn't look good.

[10ants]

Even if Altman applied retroactively (unclear if it does), this wouldn't help the OP, as the apartment had a legal regulated limit of over $2000 and was rented after it crossed the threshold, making Altman inapplicable here.

[TenantNet]

We really don't know about this specific instance 10ants, do we? Don't let your landlord friends steer your analysis here, please.

What I'm hearing from tenant lawyers is that - if upheld - Altman could indeed be retroactive. We don't know for certain, but there's a chance it will be appealed to the NYS Court of Appeals.

And it could apply to this instance as the central question of Altam is when the trigger (then $2,000) is passed. Altam says that if the last known rent stab tenant had a legal rent below the $2,000 trigger, the unit cannot be deregulated until the following vacancy, not the vacancy the occurs when the last RS tenant vacates. In short, the rent actually has to be above the trigger before a unit can be deregulated on a vacancy.

[TenantNet]

I don't want to give you false hope, but remember, the statute of limitations is for the rent level, not the stabilization status, and there is no statute of limitations on that. So if the deregulation is based on alleged improvements (which often are bogus), in my opinion, that would be something that can be challenged.

Again, a good tenant attorney that has experience with these issues can probably provide clarification. DHCR is often wrong.

[love_ny12]

No false hope, I fully understand the odds are against things going my way but I think a tenant lawyer consultation is worth it.

Logistically though, I wonder how the 2002 declaration can be contested. The owner during that time has long passed. I would now be fighting the new owner who had nothing to do with the building during that time.

[TenantNet]

A new owner "steps into the shoes" of the old owner. In short, the old owner is just as liable as the old owner.

[10ants]

In this case, the sequence seems to be:
Tenant ending in 2002: $900
Renovation+Vacancy legal rent above $2000 (thus destabilization filing) and a rent of $1800.

Altman doesn't say that the actual rent has to be above the threshold, it is just that the first tenant who rents an apartment with a legal rent above the threshold is covered by R/S. This is this tenant.

2002-2013: one or more tenants.
2013: OP rents.

I can't think of a way that Altman applies here, even if the court judges that it applies retroactively.

[TenantNet]

First, there's no proof that the rent was computed properly, or even if the LL alleged that. That means it's like most other questionable deregulations where a LL simply asserts it's above $2,000.

Legal deregulation means that the legal regulated rent has to be above the threshhold ($2,000 at that time) no matter what the LL actually charges.

But we're not looking at an overcharge claim, but on the status of rent stabilization. And with the RS status comes a host of other protections in addition to limits on rent increases over the years.

There are still unknowns as how Altan will apply. But both sides know it will have significant impact.

[love_ny12]

How would the fight against the destabilization that happened 14 years ago go? From what I understand, the previous LL was under no obligation to present anything to the DHCR. He just had to present the first post-stabilization tenant the required rider to the new lease advising of destabilization and that's that.

If a challenge is raised, does the new LL have to provide the proof from 14 years ago?