TenantNet Forum

Where tenants can seek help and help others



SRO or Stabilized Don't know

Public Housing (NYCHA), SRO, HUD, HPD, Mitchell Lama, Lofts, Coop/Condo

Moderator: TenantNet

SRO or Stabilized Don't know

Postby sandyhill » Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:17 am

We have recently discovered that we registered as an SRO. However, we all have regular stabalized leases, even those of us who share bathrooms. Can anyone explain what this means in terms of rent increases? which set of rules do we fall under?Are they allowed to increase our rent even when the SRO law didn't allow for such a thing this year? Thanks.

--------------------
there ya go
sandyhill
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 1:01 am
Location: nyc

no renewal required

Postby Anna » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:43 am

SRO/hotel Ts may or may not have leases; if they do, they do not have to renew them. Whether they renew them or not, LL MUST use the RGB SRO/hotel guidelins for annual increase, AND NOT the apt/loft increases. http://housingnyc.com/html/guidelines/hotels.html

Get SRO/hotel specific factsheets & orgs here:
http://lawhelp.org/ny/

No renewals required, summary of Appellate Term affirming Housing Court::
http://tenant.net/Court/Hcourt/index.html?x=889
whole decision:
Beverly Hotel Assoc. LLC. v. De Almeida
194 Misc.2d 538, 754 N.Y.S.2d 818
N.Y.Sup. 2003.
Jan 23, 2003

194 Misc.2d 538, 754 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 23421

Beverly Hotel Assoc. LLC, Appellant,
v.
Adelia De Almeida, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
January 23, 2003

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Schwartz & Nahins, P.C., New York City (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for appellant.
West Side SRO Law Project, New York City (Adam N. Weinstein and Amelia F. Shogan of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order dated April 12, 2002 affirmed, with $10 costs.*539

The respondent is a permanent hotel tenant (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2520.6 [j]) who requested a written lease and, when offered one by landlord containing a jury waiver, declined to sign it. Civil Court dismissed this holdover brought on account of tenant's "unreasonable" refusal to "renew the lease as required by law," and we affirm. While a landlord is required, on request, to "grant a lease" to a hotel resident (see, Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.5 [a] [2]), the resident may not be compelled to accept it on pain of eviction. Landlord's tender of a lease was no more than an offer which tenant was entitled to reject. Contrary to landlord's argument, the right to request a lease does not imply a "duty" to execute it. Moreover, under the code, a statutory hotel tenant is not required to execute a lease or renew an expiring lease (§ 2522.5 [a] [2]; § 2524.3 [f]).

Landlord's reliance upon 6 Greene St. Assoc. v Robbins (256 AD2d 169) is misplaced, as that case concerns the obligation of a tenant to sign an initial rent stabilized lease following the transition from coverage under the Loft Law.

McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.*540

Copr. (c) 2005, Randy A. Daniels, Secretary of State,
State of New York.

N.Y.Sup. 2003.
BEVERLY HOTEL v DE ALMEIDA
END OF DOCUMENT

Copyright (c) 2005 Thomson/West
Anna
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Manhattan

HC decision

Postby Anna » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:13 am


BEVERLY HOTEL ASSOC., LLC v. DE ALMEIDA

New York Law Journal
May 1, 2002

CIVIL COURT

Housing Part f

Judge Klein

Respondent seeks by notice of motion to dismiss the within Holdover proceeding, alleging petitioner's failure to state a cause of action. Respondent states that pursuant to RSC §2520.6(j), she is a permanent hotel resident by virtue of the fact that she has resided at the subject premises 215 West 94th Street in the same room and maintained said room as her primary residence since July 1996. Respondent alleges that petitioner may not commence an action under RSC §2524.3(f) for refusal to renew a lease since respondent is a permanent hotel resident. Wherefore, respondent seeks to have the petition dismissed.

Petitioner opposes arguing that the apartment in question, #1225, is not an SRO as defined by MDR 4(15) and 4(16) since the unit contains a bathroom. Furthermore, petitioner alleges that the premises is not an SRO but a hotel, and annexes copies of DHCR proceedings to support this contention. Petitioner alleges that a lease was offered to respondent and she did not execute it. Petitioner also alleges, citing to 6 Greene St. Assoc. LLC v. Robbins, 256 AD2d 169, that failure to execute an initial lease constituted grounds to commence eviction proceedings. Therefore, the proceeding should not be dismissed.

It is undisputed that respondent is a permanent hotel tenant pursuant to RSC §2560.6(j). RSC §2524.3(f) specifically states that a hotel tenant's failure to renew a lease, " . . . (f) does not apply to permanent hotel tenants, nor may a proceeding be commenced based on this ground prior to expiration of the existing lease term." The case cited by petitioner is completely distinguishable, and, in fact, irrelevant since the subject apartment is not a loft.

The statute is clear. No cause of action lies herein. Therefore, respondent's motion is granted and the within proceeding is dismissed.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Anna
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Manhattan


Return to Other NYC Housing Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests