month by month lease renewal and eviction

[superjeanniecat]

Recently the landlord of the building started renovating all the apartments. We are in a month by month renewal situation and he has asked us to find a new apartment in 30 days so he could renovate our place too. If we can't find a place in 30 days can he evict us?

[jot0n0]

The short answer is YES. Without a written lease, LL can evict you after serving you 30 days written notice to vacate.

[consigliere]

In New York City, a landlord has to give 30-days' written to terminate a month-to-month tenancy.
 
The notice has to coincide with the rental period. If you pay your rent on a calendar month basis, the tenancy could be terminated effective July 31st if the notice were given on or before July 1st.
 
The notice has to be served like a notice of petition and petition in housing court. Only after the tenancy is properly terminated can the landlord commence a summary proceeding in housing court.
 
And only a judge can order your eviction, which can be enforced by the city sheriff or a city marshal.
 

[NN]

What is the time frame for an eviction to be successful?

I have lived in my apartment for over a decade, and have been sent a letter that I am to move out by July 31. I have 5 rooms (incl. bathroom) and a basement full of stuff, and should I need to attend a court hearing, I will have documentation from two doctors indicating that I am unable to carry out an apartment search and move quickly.

Also, should I send rent checks, or inform the landlord that I will hold them until the situation is resolved? (I am paid up to the end of June and have a deposit with the LL).

Thanks.

[ig0234]

Under normal circumstances, 3 months, but you may be able to get another month or two if you play your cards right.

[ig0234]

I should add, that is until the warrant is served. you may then be able to play for another 6 weeks.

[NN]

Thank you, ig.

Do you mean I can add three months to the month I was given, or two?

Also, what would "playing my cards right" involve?

[ig0234]

well....

getting a lawyer would definately get you more time. they know how to "shlep" things when the represent the tenant.

its not bad... say it cost $1500 for a good lawyer, and you get 7 months free rent? or more??

[NN]

I wasn't thinking about free rent. What would entitle a person to that?

[Chimera]

You don't get free rent unless you are awarded an abatement by the judge. Many tenants don't bother paying the rent while they are in the process of eviction proceedings since they are being evicted anyway. Aside from being inherently wrong, this can also get you sued for back rent and perhaps mar your credit report. There is no 'entitlement' to free rent just because your landlord has decided to end your tenancy.

[TenantNet]

There are several overlapping issues here. It is not uncommon, when a tenant has no chance of escaping eviction, for a tenant attorney to negotiate several additional months at no rent. Depends on the situation and many factors. But that usually involves a settlement where the tenant would agree to move without additional opposition.

Another issue - in a holdover situation, the owner needs to serve a "Notice of Termination" on the tenant prior to commencing court proceedings. In essence, they claim they are ending the 'landlord-tenant' legal relationship. There is this window period that if they accept rent, it vitiates the claim and reinstates the L-T relationship and the court proceeding can be tossed out. Doesn't mean the tenant is not ultimately liable for the rent - just that the tenant may not need to pay it right then. But the LL would include that amount as part of what he is seeking in the suit, and can as for rent payment into court in some circumstances, or he could make a motion for 'use and occupancy' - a way of getting the court to order the tenant to pay 'rent' without reinstating the L-T relationship.

Chimera is thinking about court-ordered abatements - which is another thing altogether. Nor is withholding rent during a court proceeding inherently 'wrong' (and see above about the window period). There may be potential liabilities down the road, but value judgments should not be inferred. If one wants to argue equity, in most cases tenants would have equity on their side.

[Chimera]

"There may be potential liabilities down the road, but value judgments should not be inferred. If one wants to argue equity, in most cases tenants would have equity on their side. "

Not in this case. No reductions of services has occured, simply the termination of a tenancy. It is a cut and dry exchange, an agreed upon rent for an agreed upon tenancy.

ig0234 is talking about free rent, not about withholding rent during an eviction proceeding.

<small>[ July 02, 2003, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Chimera ]</small>

[TenantNet]

No he's not really talking about 'free rent' in the way you're thinking. He's talking about negotiated/stipulated agreements. Tenant attorneys do this all the time. Depends on the strength of the LL's case v. the tenant's case, the nature of the court proceedings, the likelihood of success on either side and a rational assessment by a landlord (if that's possible) that in some cases it's better to allow x number of months for a tenant to move than to continue to tie something up in court. It depends on negotiating positions and poker. If a LL wants a tenant out (maybe to deliver an empty building to a new buyer), the tenant could tie it up for some time in appeals and there is nothing wrong with that - it's the tenant's right to raise and litigate all pertinent issues. If a LL wants to resolve the issue rather than be a dick, he'll do the algebra and in many cases will agree to various stipulations, some of which could involve x months to move and often at no rent.

[jot0n0]

…the tenant could tie it up for some time in appeals and there is nothing wrong with that - it's the tenant's right to raise and litigate all pertinent issues. If a LL wants to resolve the issue rather than be a dick, he'll do the algebra and in many cases will agree to various stipulations, some of which could involve x months to move and often at no rent.

Sound more like legalize extortion, using the court system to stall and delay a simple contract agreement between two parties. To a layman this should be a simple cut and dry matter, month-to-month lease end and proper legal notification is given in a timely manner to vacate the apt. What argument does the tenant have in stopping eviction? Lawyers will use all sorts of motions and technicalities to delay evictions and try to negotiate a “settlement”, which is another word for paying a ransom to tenant to release apt being held hostage. In my view of fair play, these kinds of cases should not use housing court as a tool to facilitate these kind of negotiations and tying up the court’s valuable time when there are real housing issue backlogged waiting to be heard.