No lease: given 60 days to vacate premises

[Bean]

After living in the apartment for 4 years, my landlord refused to give us a new lease in February, stating that he wouldn't increase the rent and that we "didn't need a lease."

On Friday, he told me that he was selling the building and that we had 60 days to move out.

There is another tenant and his family living in the building and he has given them 30 days.

It looks like he is within his rights as, without a lease, we all became "month-to-month" tenants.

He has not given any of his tenants notification in writing and I find it difficult to believe that he's going to close the deal so quickly.

We have a 13-month old baby and it is extremely disruptive for us to move so soon.

Aside from speaking to him or to the new owner to ask for an extension, is there any law that protects us or the other tenants?

Thank you.

[TenantNet]

Have you ever investigated whether the unit should be rent stabilized? I mean really investigated?

[Bean]

Thanks for the reply. Please correct me if I'm wrong but there are only 3 units in the building so I believe that excludes us from rent stabilization laws.

[NYHawk]

the smartest thing for you to do is .................absolutely nothing.

The landlord does not know the law. Exploit that.

The landlord has to give you a written notice -- verbal notice means nothing in the eyes of the law.

If you do not move when the landlord wants you to the landlord's only remedy is to sue you in Housing Court. You can get such a case dismissed because the landlord never served you with any written notice.

If you discuss this with the landlord (or the new owner) you will only be educating the landlord (or the new owner). So, don't do anything except read this:

http://tenant.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=42173

[TenantNet]

I agree with NYHawk. That will buy you some additional time. However, once the LL makes that mistake, they will learn. Eventually they will get you out. So now is the time to start looking and making preparations.

[Bean]

That's sound advice. We're not really inclined to stick around for his shenanigans but it might be convenient if we could gain a little extra time from his negligence. Thank you very much.

[NYHawk]

another thought: this might be the situation where the seller (the owner) is obligated to have the building free of all tenants at the closing. Buyers like empty buildings so they can pick who they want to be their tenants.

So, stick around. If the owner has owned the building for a long time, there will be a huge potential profit for the owner. If you refuse to move the owner will be in a bind and may likely offer you some serious money to agree to move, so as not to bust the sale of the building.

Savvy folks have exploited just such a situation and made a bundle.

[Bean]

That's interesting. Someone else had mentioned that zero occupancy was required in order to sell the building.

Any more information you could provide regarding this would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

[TenantNet]

There's no law that requires zero occupancy in order to sell a building. But it could be a condition of the sale, meaning the sale will not occur unless the seller gets rid of the tenants.