Here's a question for the group.
A neighbor in my building (a long-time rent stabilized tenant) prevailed during a protracted holdover case (a false nuisance case). He represented himself, and it took 7 months of nonsense, but he prevailed, thank goodness.
During the case, the landlord insisted upon "Use and Occupancy," which is typical, and was established with a stipulation.
The neighbor just came to me with a question. The case has been over for almost a year, but he only JUST noticed that the Landlord was still charging him "Use and Occupancy" not rent. His new lease began right after his case was over.
The question: Since the landlord is still charging him "Use and Occupancy", and he is paying every month, is the landlord in violation of the lease, and the terms of the tenancy because the tenant is being treated as a month-to-month tenant?
Shouldn't the landlord have resumed charging the tenant "Rent" after the case was over.
I know they are just words, but if "Use and Occupancy" is legally significant when a case is happening, then isn't it legally significant if a landlord is still charging it after a case is long over.
Is the tenant sitting on an enormous credit, since he is illegally being treated as a month-to-month tenant?
Any thoughts? I know he should check with a lawyer, but we are curious if anybody has ever heard of this happening. The legal questions it raises aren't typical with rent regulated tenants.
Thanks for your thoughts.