DON'T CALL THESE LEASES SWEETHEARTS

We have certainly fallen through the looking glass (or, if you prefer, down the rabbit hole) when a landlord charging a rent-regulated tenant a preferential rent is called "dangerous."

Do landlords charge too much rent?  I won't touch that one, but thoughtful people on both sides of the divide can disagree on that one.

Do some landlords artificially inflate their rents and then charge a false, made- up "preferential rent"?  Yes, yes,  they do, and any article seeking to expose this is well worth writing.  If you don't like the rent regulations, you should either, as a landlord, actively campaign against them, or get out of the business: subterfuges and game playing cannot be condoned.

But when tenants complain that they signed a lease which clearly states that their rent should be higher, but that they are paying a lesser rent, and that at the end of that lease term their rent can revert to the higher rent, there are no grounds for a complaint.  Not only are people assumed to understand the contracts they are signing, but, given the very medium which publicized the above article, it is not difficult for any wary tenant to investigate what in fact a "preferential lease" (it used to be called a "sweetheart lease" back in the day), is.

There are internet websites to read through,  there are blogs to be perused, there are free legal clinics, and odd as it may sound, many tenants know someone who knows someone who is an attorney.  I must spend a good hour a week fielding calls from other attorneys who don't practice in the area of landlord-tenant law, who refer their clients to me, and I gladly explain the laws and rules to these tenants.

No one (ok, not all that many people) want to see others move or be displaced.  Regardless of what the politicians say, on both sides of the aisle, things are not getting better and most of us live paycheck to paycheck.   Losing your apartment is not a joke.  

To attack, however, a law and concept that permits a landlord to lower the rent temporarily, and then revoke that concession, is to only invite the end of this concept (preferential rent, sweetheart), which is very  much like throwing the baby out with the bath water.              

THERE IS ALWAYS AN ANSWER, AND SOMETIMES THE ANSWER IS “NO.”

              A favorite refrain of so many clients, after I discuss their options with them, is to answer,

“So, I have no choice, right?”

              No, you always have a choice, and there is always an answer.  You may just not like the answer.

              I recently read this article, from a tenant complaining of having his windows sealed for an indefinite period of time.  Is the landlord an evil creature, intent on depriving the tenants of sunlight?  Is this monster trying to force these tenants into a Morlock-like underworld of darkness?

Well, no.  The article makes it clear that the building is undergoing façade repair.

              Does this minimize the concerns of the tenant?  No, of course not-and my point is not to mock the tenant.  This cannot be a good situation and the lack of air and sunlight, and the inability to open windows and/or use an a/c in the summer sounds like a major inconvenience.

              What are the suggested answers?

              One suggestion, in this article, is not really fleshed out: the consulted attorney points out that the owner of the unit must provide a safe and habitable apartment.  True, very true.  The only thing, however, that this information will lead to is the tenant withholding some or all of the rent.  Financially satisfying, perhaps, but it will not take the plastic off those windows.

              Another posited idea is to write letters complaining to the owner and the condo board.  Not a bad idea either, but then it is unlikely that the board is going to stop a major project like façade repair, which may well be underway because of violations issued by the City.

              You can call HPD to have them issue violations, but I wonder if the City would issue violations if the Condo has applied for and received a permit to repair the façade.  In fact, failure to  secure the outside windows to prevent them from being conduits of dust and debris into apartments may well be a violation, too.

              And finally, the article suggests that you could commence an action in court in what is commonly known as the HPD part to direct the landlord to “cure” this problem.  But what “problem” would the City be asking the Condo to “cure”?  Would it make sense to attempt to force the Condo to cease its façade work?  Would it make sense to force the Condo to remove the plastic from the windows, and subject the tenants to dust and debris?  I don’t think HPD would be in a position to force the Condo to do anything, and if the Condo fought hard enough, by the time this matter is resolved, the façade repair may well be on its way to completion.

              So, what is the answer?

              The only answer is, and may well be, that this tenant will have a very uncomfortable spring, and summer.