Can a rent-stabilized tenant waive rights in renewal lea

[mkraft]

By law, landlords of rent-stabilized apartments must renew expiring leases on "the same terms and conditions" as those in the expiring lease.

If a landlord includes a rider with such a renewal lease that contains terms and/or conditions which were *not* part of the expiring lease -- and the tenant signs the rider -- can the landlord then legally enforce those new terms/conditions?

Thanks.

[consigliere]

Signing such a lease rider should not waive your rights. But, instead of signing such a rider, you should file a complaint with DHCR, about the landlord's failure to offer a proper renewal.
 
This would have three benefits: (1) eliminate the improper rider, (2) delay the rent increase, and (3) possibly give you the opportunity to choose the lower RGB increase (currently proposed: 2% or 4%), effective with renewals on or after October 1, 2002, versus the current 4% or 6% increase.
 
 
Rent Stabilization Code §2523.5(c)(1):
 
Where the owner fails to timely offer a renewal lease or rental agreement in accordance with subdivision (a) of this section, the one- or two-year lease term selected by the tenant shall commence at the tenant's option, either (i) on the date a renewal lease would have commenced had a timely offer been made, or (ii) on the first rent payment date occurring no less than 90 days after the date that the owner does offer the lease to the tenant. In either event, the effective date of the increased rent under the renewal lease shall commence on the first rent payment date occurring no less than 90 days after such offer is made by the owner, and the guidelines rate applicable shall be no greater than the rate in effect on the commencement date of the lease for which a timely offer should have been made.
 
Rent Stabilization Code - Part 2523
 

[mkraft]

Thanks. Can you refer me to the part of the RS Code (or other relevant law) which clarifies the 'waiver' issue?

You wrote "'should not' waive your rights" rather than 'will not' (or 'won't') -- Did you meant to imply that the terms of a renewal lease rider, if signed by a tenant, might in certain circumstances be upheld in a court case?

Re: the RSC section you quoted, I'm not sure that 'timeliness' is relevant here. The lease was offered in a timely manner. Although an improper rider was included with the lease, without clear evidence that it was included in bad faith, and with no obligation on the part of the tenant to sign the rider (which is physically separate from the lease), I wouldn't expect the inclusion of the rider by itself to relieve the tenant from returning the renewal lease.

My guess would be that if the landlord refuses to accept the renewal lease *without* the rider, then a DHCR action would be the way to go.

Can any attorney here offer an opinion about this?

[chelsea]

I'm not a lawyer but here's section (a) of the section referred to, which makes it clear the renewal lease must have same terms as original (click on link to RSC 2523 in consigliere's previous post)

---------
(a) On a form prescribed or a facsimile of such form approved by the DHCR, dated by the owner, every owner, other than an owner of hotel accommodations, shall notify the tenant named in the expiring lease not more than 150 days and not less than 90 days prior to the end of the tenant's lease term, by mail or personal delivery, of the expiration of the lease term, and offer to renew the lease or rental agreement at the legal regulated rent permitted for such renewal lease and otherwise on the same terms and conditions as the expiring lease...
---------
Also see (d):
------------
(d) Except as provided in Part 2524 of this Title, the failure to offer a renewal lease pursuant to this section shall not deprive the tenant of any protections or rights provided by the RSL and this Code and the tenant shall continue to have the same rights as if the expiring lease were still in effect.
---------

It depends on what the new lease provision is, and how risk-averse you are. If you don't to make the complaint to DHCR, you could sign the lease but not the rider, or cross out the waiver, and send it in now (within 60 days of the offer, that is). If the lease provision directly contradicts the Rent Stabilization Law and/or the RSC, it is my understanding that the law trumps the lease provision.

[mkraft]

Thanks, but if you read my original post, I'm aware of the law and was not questioning whether the inclusion of a rider is proper or not (I know it isn't).

What is as yet unanswered is my original question re: "waiver of rights" -- i.e., whether by signing such a rider a tenant would (or might) waive his right to have the renewal based on the "original terms and conditions" of the original lease.

A second question, based on Consigliore's reply, is whether a DHCR complaint should be filed simply based on the inclusion of the rider, or only after a refusal by the landlord to accept the renewal lease *without* the rider.

Can an attorney here respond to either or both of these questions?

Thanks.