TenantNet Forum

Where tenants can seek help and help others



Roommate moving out for 3 months and trying to sublet

Rights for non-regulated tenants

Moderator: TenantNet

Postby Emeraldstar » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:30 am

Hi All
Ronin seems to me you missed nothing. A lease 10 years ago for how long one can only guess. The "house" over the years is filled through friends and each pays different amt..... due to room size? One can only guess? Disliked roomie morphs into smart cookie & gets lease with a built in roommate push out since it's for more rent though again one can only guess.
Mob mentality .....sounds like the Valentine's Day slaughter :shock: "Oh what a tangled web we weave"
Emeraldstar
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:01 am

Postby TenantNet » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:40 am

Ronin, you missed everything I said. LL can't create a new lease until the old lease is over, either by expiration or termination. Nothing to do with regulation.

You've had too many Xmas toddies.
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Postby Emeraldstar » Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:46 am

Hi All
slurrr.....then let's all clink glasses :wink:
Emeraldstar
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:01 am

Postby ronin » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:37 am

Well Emeraldstar certainly has gotten into the spirit of the season.

No Tenant, you are missing the point. The new lease has nothing to do with regulation. It is that the only one who can complain about the new lease having been signed whilst the old was in effect is the tenant with the new lease. In fact, he doesnt have to let anyone know he has the new lease.

He's not going to go out of his way to complain about the illegality of the lease. The LL can't pull a fast one due to the "doctrine of unclean hands" and equitable estopple. LL's stuck with the lease in equity. Also, tenant's damages would be to get possession of the apartment, and can't complain for overlap months because he had possession of the apartment.

Hey Emaraldstar- did you spike Tenant's hot coco or something?!? :wink:
ronin
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:01 am

Postby TenantNet » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:45 am

Of course it has nothing to do with regulation. I didn't say that it did.

It's a lease, a contract. But the existing tenants already have a lease for the premises which has not expired or been terminated. A M2M is still a lease. And of course the existing tenants have standing to oppose anyone's claim of a new lease, which would supplant their existing rights and force them to move. In order for any new lease to take effect, the existing tenants and their lease must have expired (and they move out) or the LL terminates their lease and commences a holdover.

If I have a lease and someone out of the blue rings my doorbell and claims he has a lease for my apartment, I would laugh first, and then exert my rights under my existing lease.

I don't know why you're fixated on the tenant with the new lease and his motivation to complain or not. Where did that come from? You're talking in tongues. If you don't understand, then call me (but not late)
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Postby ronin » Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:45 am

The "new" tenant is one of the old tenants. He's there already he's not out of the blue. Besides, he's not the one knocking on the door. It is the LL saying get out- no more M2M for anyone.

The current tenant with the new lease gets to stay... He's not M2M.
ronin
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:01 am

Postby TenantNet » Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:25 am

It doesn't matter it the "new" tenant is one of several of the existing tenants. The LL has not extinguished the rights of the existing tenants, even if they are M2M. He must serve notice like any other case. They still have rights until the LL goes through the process. He has to server 30 days written notice.

If served today, the effective day would be Feb. 1st. And if the current tenants decide to not vacate, the LL would need to commence a holdover proceeding against ALL of the existing tenants, including the "new" tenant. Remember, this is one unit, not rooms that are being rented.

This is an important point Ronin, about which I know you are aware. I don't know why you are suggesting the LL can skip this.
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Postby ronin » Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:12 am

I'm not suggesting the LL can skip notice and eviction proceedings. That's not what was said. It's that the tenant with the new lease doesn't face any harm from those proceedings. While the LL and the old roommates duke it out, he can sit back and relax knowing that he is covered by his new agreement.

Of course the LL has to go through the whole procedure to get the others out. Notice, Notice of Petition, Petition, and ultimately the 72 hour notice if it comes to that. I'm not suggesting that the other roommates lose any rights they have or had. Only that the roommate with the new lease has rights that they do not. He signed for and the LL agreed to them.

What makes this case so interesting is the irony of some creepy roommates serving a bogus notice to one of their fellow roommates when they are mere M2M, and being outsmarted by the guy who gets a lease for himself.

Absent the roommates trying the underhanded eviction against the smart guy, I would think the bunch of them should have negotiated a lease. But given that they acted like slumlords (without property or lease rights no less) I feel they got what they deserved. Good for the goose, good for the gander, poetic justice, etc.
ronin
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:01 am

Postby TenantNet » Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:18 am

It's that the tenant with the new lease doesn't face any harm from those proceedings. While the LL and the old roommates duke it out, he can sit back and relax knowing that he is covered by his new agreement.


Incorrect. The one tenant's new lease supposedly started on December 1st while others are still in occupancy and still have tenancy rights. As a matter of law, the new lease is invalid.

Yes, the LL and ALL the tenants (including the individual tenant with the new lease) can duke it out in court. But there are two separate things at issue:

a) can the old group of tenants continue as month-to-month tenants. They will likely lose this, but the litigation can go on for a while. And when they lose, the rogue tenant's rights are also extinguished under the old agreement.

b) is the new lease with the December 1 date valid? I would wager the tenants might win on that (although they would do better in Supreme Ct for a number of reasons). If so, there's no guarantee that the rogue tenant would get another new lease when it's all over or settled.

Only that the roommate with the new lease has rights that they do not. He signed for and the LL agreed to them.


But the LL didn't possess those rights to give to the new tenant. He had an ongoing LL-T relationship with the old tenants which is still ongoing. Legally the new lease does not exist.

What makes this case so interesting is the irony of some creepy roommates serving a bogus notice to one of their fellow roommates when they are mere M2M...


See, now you're arguing that the "creepy roommates" do not have the standing to give the one roommate a notice. I agree with you there as he too is a tenant in equal standing with the creepy mob.

But you can't argue that the one roommate has tenancy rights (making the notice by the creepy mob invalid) while at the same time saying that a bogus lease (by the one tenant) supersedes the same tenancy rights of the creepy mob.

The new tenant indeed does have exposure. There is no guarantee the the LL would offer the new tenant a lease once the litigation is over.

You were indeed suggesting the old tenants rights be unilaterally superseded by the bogus new lease.

OK, so let's close this thread. I have a lot of deliveries to make later tonight and I need my sleep.
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Previous

Return to NYC Non-Regulated Apartments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron