Can LL take my apartment?

[mkraft]

If you want to keep your apartment, you'll have to hire a lawyer (unless the landlord is bluffing and hopes you'll just leave). This is a difficult kind of case, though the landlord has to prove that he actually will use it for his son. If he can prove that, you probably won't be able to keep your apartment.

Still, there are some variables: the judge who hears the case, your lawyer, how hard and long you're willing to fight the landlord in court (in which case he might offer you a settlement to get you out quicker than he otherwise will be able to). That unfortunately can also get expensive for you.

If you're paying at or near market rents, it may not be worth fighting, particularly if you believe the landlord really intends to put his son in your apartment. If your rent is low, the fight may be worthwhile.

This is not expert advice. Check with tenant organizations like Met Council, etc. for another point of view and for attorney recommendations.

<small>[ December 20, 2002, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: mkraft ]</small>

[Phil Cohen]

Also check to see who owns the building. To whom do you write your checks? Who is the registered owner. If it is a corporation or other business entity (an LLC, for instance), I am fairly sure that the LL can't take the building for a relative.

[MikeW]

I don't know how much you can do about this before the fact. I don't know if you've looked at the older postings, but we've gone over this issue before. A single owner can take as many of his units as he wants for personal use (personal use includes his family members). I don't know if the LL really has to 'prove' anything to deny you the renewal. However, if he turns around and rerents the unit, and he get caught (ie, you find out and file with the DHRC), there are some fairly significant penelties. Of course, by then your out of the apartment, and I don't think there's anything in the law that makes him take you back.

[Cold Hands in Queens]

Can anyone please tell me how to look up if my landlord has allegedly given a place to a "relative" before, and then re-rented? My landlord is threatening the same stunt in light of my recent action against him for heat/hot water.

He was bragging how he lied to the court to get a rent-stabilized tenant whom he didn't like out of the place, and then re-rented it.

How can I look up housing court actions against him? Please tag up answers here and email me also, please!

[Phil Cohen]

I know of no way of researching evictions -- which I believe are housing court actions -- other than by going to the housing court clerk and looking up the LL in the index.

[MikeW]

There may not be an eviction, the tenant may have just moved out at the end of the lease. There would only be a court record if the tenant chose to fight in court.

[Karin06]

Regarding Eviction from an apartment based on owner occupancy. Read DHCR Fact Sheet #10. It explains the times that the LL can evict based on owner occupancy need. I have run into the same situation but since my owner already occupies an apartment in the building she was not able to evict us. Also the LL needs to give you his notice in writing and it must be served at least 120 days and not more then 150 days before the current lease term expires.

[MikeW]

Karin,

I don't know about the fact sheet, but I have looked at the actual rent law text (it's on this site somewhere if you dig for it).

While it states that only a single owner (in the case where a building may be owned by multipla people as a partnership) can take an apartment for personal use. It quite explicitly makes no statement as to how many units that owner can take.

There was a case that came up in the times a few months back. Someone bought a townhouse in a good area of Manhattan that had been carved up into apartments. The owner was seeking to take back all the apartments, are reassemble it back into a single family house. I haven't heard anything since about it, but it would be instructive to see how that turns out.

[Chimera]

I recently read a case about a couple who took over an entire regulated building. They were planning on having a baby in the near future, and they testified that they needed the entire house for their personal use. The judge accepted this reason and the couple were granted the right to evict all tenants. I think as long as the landlord can demonstrate that he intends to honestly use the units for personal reasons, he's very likely to be granted that right by housing court. In this regard there is no limit to how many units a landlord can take over in a single building. However, as may be the case in Karin's situation, if the landlord has been occupying a single unit for a long period of time and suddenly wants to take over another unit, just for himself and for no good reason, then the tenant is usually granted the right to remain in the apartment.

In Bobber's case, it sounds like the landlord has the right to terminate his tenancy if he genuinely plans on using the unit for a family member.

[TenantNet]

The New York Times
September 15, 1996, Sunday, Late Edition - Final

Habitats/347 East 52d Street;
Town-House Renovation Becomes a Family Affair
By TRACIE ROZHON

AROUND the corner on First Avenue, an old neighborhood institution, Billy's 1870 steak house, survives. But across the street, a fancy bakery now lists "eggs en cocotte" on its breakfast menu and lets its clientele admire its patisseries from rattan armchairs.

In this changing neighborhood in the East 50's, a young brother and sister, Jeffrey Reich and Randi Kahn -- joined in the deal by their respective spouses -- have bought an impressive town house with a black marble-veneered facade, and are proceeding to rip everything out and build themselves comfortable quarters for two couples.

At 347 East 52d Street, they have made it a family affair, working together to move out a group of rent-stabilized tenants in seven months. That Herculean task accomplished, they continue to divide to conquer, with each assigned an area on which to focus.

"We kind of divided it up, with our taking the area that interested us most," Ms. Kahn explained. Mr. Reich, 28, a lawyer, took the facade. Alan Kahn, Ms. Kahn's husband, took the plumbing and heating; the two women worked with an architect on their respective floor plans.

Mr. Kahn, at 32 the oldest, runs a small systems-management company. He talks the least, and jokes about it, deferring to his more voluble wife and brother-in-law. But Mr. Kahn is, in a way, the most boyish in his delight over the house.

Downstairs, in the ground floor he and his wife have recaptured from a huge boiler and a lot of trash -- they're taking the bottom two floors of the five-story house -- Mr. Kahn jumped from one level of the two-tiered floor to the other, full of enthusiasm for their plans.

"I can have a little wet bar here," he said, gesturing to a spot a little more than halfway to the back of the ground floor on the left side. "And this is where we'll put the television, and my friends'll drop by and we'll watch football." Crossing to the series of steel casement windows across the back, leading out to an unusual dug-out terrace with steep stairs leading up to a walled garden, he said, "And if there's any money left, we may put in a little rock garden with a fountain."

The partners don't know much about the history of the town house, but they expect to learn more. One of the former tenants returns to Manhattan from Europe this fall and has promised to tell them of the parties once held in the basement apartment.

"We don't know," said Barbara Reich, 28, "but we hear there was once a piano, and Judy Garland came down and sang here once or twice."

The Kahns are expecting their first child in early January, which was one of the reasons they chose the downstairs space -- to make it easier for mother and toddler to run in and out of the house. They also liked the garden, and Mr. Kahn thought the darkest space, the room toward the front of the house on the ground floor, would make an ideal home office for his business.

"We're going to get a nice fake window and put some light behind it," said Mrs. Kahn, pointing to the east wall, currently stripped down to bare brick like the rest of the interior walls.

When they chose floors, the Reichs chose the top two -- "Luckily, there was an elevator," said Mr. Reich with a laugh -- and hope to make their own outdoor space on the 1,250-square-foot roof. (The third floor will be used by both families for guests.)

The Reichs plan to put a 15-foot wall of glass windows across the back on the top floor -- which will contain their living room, kitchen and dining room -- and remove three feet back across the roof for a skylight, or greenhouse effect. The Reichs found an elaborate limestone Tudor fireplace mantel on the second floor and, with their relatives' permission, reinstalled it on the top floor. They will put their three bedrooms on the fourth floor.

The mantel is about the only architectural detail left inside; the house is gutted now. The duct work will be finished in two weeks, "and then we'll really fly," said Mr. Kahn.

ONLY a few months ago, the house was packed with people. When the two couples saw it, only two floors -- the first and second -- were vacant. Altogether, there were seven rent-stabilized tenants.

To most people intent on changing a town house to two-family use, the situation might have seemed hopeless. But as Mr. Reich explained it, because the tenants were rent-stabilized and not rent-controlled, the would-be buyers felt they had a good chance, since New York's rent-stabilization rules allow a property with rent-stabilized tenants to be converted to the new owners' personal use after the tenants' leases run out.

And one of the good things about the property, as far as the Reichs were concerned, was that all the tenants' leases were set to run out on the same day: Jan. 1, 1996.

They looked at the house in August 1995, and they knew -- they had been looking at houses for almost a year -- that they would have to give three months' notice before those leases ran out.

They saw the house on Aug. 1; they negotiated and agreed on the $650,000 price in the next few days, and eventually, the notices were sent out on time, by Oct. 1.

And even though they believed that they could win any court case brought by the tenants after they notified them their leases would not be renewed, the Reichs say they thought the best strategy was to try to settle with as many of them as possible anyway.

"Altogether, we paid less than $100,000," said Ms. Kahn. "With the renovation costs, we'll end up spending less than $200 per square foot. Given what we'll end up with -- versus some cookie-cutter condo or co-op -- it's a bargain."

"We're happy," said her brother.

Mr. Kahn and Ms. Reich, the more silent ones, nodded in agreement.

[kt8744]

I recently read about a case (in the housing decisions part of this website) in which a landlord claimed he wanted the apartment for his son and then it turned out the son was 12 years old.

I don't think you need to do anything as far as communicating with the landlord before you get a notice and I don't see how that would help you. In the meantime, it would be worthwhile to go down to the courthouse when you have time (they have one late night a week) and look up the landlord in the computer and check the case histories.

You can also try to find out about the son. Does the landlord currently live in your building? Can you think of any way to find out where the son currently lives? If you have a small apartment and the son is married with 8 kids, it is unlikely he's moving in. Dig around and see what you can find out. Enter the building info on all the various information websites (a bunch were just listed in the landlord won't give out mailing address thread) and see if you come up with anything.

Also, I think there was another recent listing in housing decisions saying that if a tenant is disabled or elderly the landlord has to find them similar accommodations but that the notice doesn't need to let them know this. I suggest going to the housing decisions and entering keywords like owner occupancy and Golub (think that's the right one) and doing some research.

Also, if you do get the notice be very vocal about it in your building. It is possible that a longtime tenant may have some information about other times they have tried this.

You can also try to find out if they own other property. If the landlord has gotten his son an apartment in another building I'm not sure if he can take another for the same son.

[MikeW]

Bobber,

Given the situation you've outlined, you'd have a very tough time. Since you're not disabled or elderly, you have no special protection. Since the building isn't corporate ownership, and the owner has only one building, there isn't too much to play with up front (ie. before the LL takes the apartment back). If you can document the friction, you MIGHT be able to make a case that this is a retaliatory eviction. However, this is risky. It would probably be fairly expensive (legal fees), and you still stand a good chance of losing. Now, it may delay your eviction for some time, but if you eventually have to go, you'll have another problem. If you take the LL to court, the record of that will end up in a database that LLs/brokers/management companies check when reviewing potential tenants. They tend to shy away from tenants that have any kind of court action in their background, especially housing court cases.