http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/nyregion/for-the-second-year-rents-in-some-stabilized-apartments-in-new-york-city-will-not-increase.html?_r=0
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Saturday, June 11, 2016
"Forgetful Shareholder"
The New York Time's Sunday Real Estate Section (yes, I get that on Saturday: my powers are without limit) had a fine article on what do to when a co-op unit owner can no longer take care of him or herself.
Above and beyond neighborly concern for the elderly unit owner, the other unit owners also would prefer to not wake up to a building full of smoke when the senior tenant forgets to turn off a flame on their range, or worse still, come home to a building that is no longer there because the gas was left on long after it should have been turned off.
Real and sad concerns for any City dweller.
The Times article suggests, reluctantly, that if the tenant is causing or creating a dangerous situation, an eviction action should be commenced.
I would like to briefly elaborate on how that could play out.
A co-op unit owner, who cannot remember to use a shower curtain and floods out the tenant downstairs, or who goes to sleep with a chicken in the oven, necessitating periodic visits by the fire
department, has most likely violated a clause in the lease and or behaved in a manner that could be denominated as a "nuisance," which would give the Co-op the right to commence an eviction action.
Such an action can and does often settle when a family member comes to court and or contacts the board, and offers to remove the unit owner and arrange to have the unit sold.
If the unit owner on his or her own, or with counsel, contests the action, then it will play out in the courts. Not every fear of the Co-op Board is justified, and not every assertion of fact raised by the Board is correct. The unit owner may well get the case dismissed.
If, however, it becomes abundantly clear to the Judge and or the attorneys involved that the unit owner cannot take care of themselves, the Court can appoint a Guardian Ad Litem. (I remember that a party who wished to have a guardian appointed had to move the court for this relief, but it has been many years since I have seen this: a Judge will often take this upon themselves and appoint the guardian.)
More often than not, this guardian (referred to as a GAL), at least in the co-op context, has limited powers. (If the tenant is indigent and residing in a rental apartment, the GAL will often be instrumental in assisting the tenant in obtaining rent payments from various City and State and or charitable organizations.) An aggressive GAL may be able to assist the co-op unit owner in modifying their behavior and mollifying the Board, but once a GAL is in, in this context, there is almost always one more step.
At some point, what is commonly called an Article 81 action will be commenced in Supreme Court, seeking the appointment of a full time guardian of the person of the co-op unit owner.
This action will almost always stay the housing court proceeding, and can take anywhere from a few months to well over a year, depending on whether the unit owner chooses to contest the proceeding.
The end result of this proceeding, almost always, is that the guardian will arrange for the sale of the unit and the relocation of the unit owner, unless the unit owner's family steps in and assists.
During all this, it is to be hoped, that the unit owner will use his or her shower curtain, and stop cooking entirely.
Above and beyond neighborly concern for the elderly unit owner, the other unit owners also would prefer to not wake up to a building full of smoke when the senior tenant forgets to turn off a flame on their range, or worse still, come home to a building that is no longer there because the gas was left on long after it should have been turned off.
Real and sad concerns for any City dweller.
The Times article suggests, reluctantly, that if the tenant is causing or creating a dangerous situation, an eviction action should be commenced.
I would like to briefly elaborate on how that could play out.
A co-op unit owner, who cannot remember to use a shower curtain and floods out the tenant downstairs, or who goes to sleep with a chicken in the oven, necessitating periodic visits by the fire
department, has most likely violated a clause in the lease and or behaved in a manner that could be denominated as a "nuisance," which would give the Co-op the right to commence an eviction action.
Such an action can and does often settle when a family member comes to court and or contacts the board, and offers to remove the unit owner and arrange to have the unit sold.
If the unit owner on his or her own, or with counsel, contests the action, then it will play out in the courts. Not every fear of the Co-op Board is justified, and not every assertion of fact raised by the Board is correct. The unit owner may well get the case dismissed.
If, however, it becomes abundantly clear to the Judge and or the attorneys involved that the unit owner cannot take care of themselves, the Court can appoint a Guardian Ad Litem. (I remember that a party who wished to have a guardian appointed had to move the court for this relief, but it has been many years since I have seen this: a Judge will often take this upon themselves and appoint the guardian.)
More often than not, this guardian (referred to as a GAL), at least in the co-op context, has limited powers. (If the tenant is indigent and residing in a rental apartment, the GAL will often be instrumental in assisting the tenant in obtaining rent payments from various City and State and or charitable organizations.) An aggressive GAL may be able to assist the co-op unit owner in modifying their behavior and mollifying the Board, but once a GAL is in, in this context, there is almost always one more step.
At some point, what is commonly called an Article 81 action will be commenced in Supreme Court, seeking the appointment of a full time guardian of the person of the co-op unit owner.
This action will almost always stay the housing court proceeding, and can take anywhere from a few months to well over a year, depending on whether the unit owner chooses to contest the proceeding.
The end result of this proceeding, almost always, is that the guardian will arrange for the sale of the unit and the relocation of the unit owner, unless the unit owner's family steps in and assists.
During all this, it is to be hoped, that the unit owner will use his or her shower curtain, and stop cooking entirely.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
To Buy or Rent
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/upshot/four-not-so-obvious-things-to-consider-when-deciding-to-buy-or-rent.html?_r=0
Today's NYTimes had an excellent article on whether to buy or rent.
The article discusses such diverse issues as rising rents, rent regulation, tax benefits and liabilities, forced savings, and the physical maintenance of the property.
Well done.
The one thing not discussed, however, is that in NYC, whether you buy or rent, 9 times out of 10 you are buying or renting an apartment.
Now, your apartment might be as large as an Olympic swimming pool and you might have a doorman, indoor gym and a skeet shooting range in your living room, but it is still an apartment.
Why should that matter?
I don't think Sartre ever sold real estate, but he nailed it when he said (sorta'), 'hell is people.' (OK, he did not literally say it....go read "No Exit.")
I moved out of NYC in the year 2000. I went from living in a co-op to a private home.
Do I love the commute? No. Do I enjoy cutting hedges and mowing a yard? Of course not.
The one thing I don't miss is having people above me, below me or on either side of me.
Over the years, as a more or less person, and as an attorney practicing in the area of real estate law, I have encountered neighbors who:
Kept a pit bull in the communal laundry room;
Turned their apartment into an S&M dungeon (and no, I don't remember the address);
Walked around the hallways undressed (and no, I don't remember the address);
Sat on the stoop drinking beer (only one person gets to do this at my house);
Stabbed someone;
Threw cinderblocks off the roof;
Turned their apartment into the weight room of a gym;
Threw someone down a flight of stairs;
Turned their apartment into a disco.
All true, sadly true, completely true.
If you can do it, run, do not walk, to the nearest one family house you can buy. Well, I suppose, you can rent it too.
Today's NYTimes had an excellent article on whether to buy or rent.
The article discusses such diverse issues as rising rents, rent regulation, tax benefits and liabilities, forced savings, and the physical maintenance of the property.
Well done.
The one thing not discussed, however, is that in NYC, whether you buy or rent, 9 times out of 10 you are buying or renting an apartment.
Now, your apartment might be as large as an Olympic swimming pool and you might have a doorman, indoor gym and a skeet shooting range in your living room, but it is still an apartment.
Why should that matter?
I don't think Sartre ever sold real estate, but he nailed it when he said (sorta'), 'hell is people.' (OK, he did not literally say it....go read "No Exit.")
I moved out of NYC in the year 2000. I went from living in a co-op to a private home.
Do I love the commute? No. Do I enjoy cutting hedges and mowing a yard? Of course not.
The one thing I don't miss is having people above me, below me or on either side of me.
Over the years, as a more or less person, and as an attorney practicing in the area of real estate law, I have encountered neighbors who:
Kept a pit bull in the communal laundry room;
Turned their apartment into an S&M dungeon (and no, I don't remember the address);
Walked around the hallways undressed (and no, I don't remember the address);
Sat on the stoop drinking beer (only one person gets to do this at my house);
Stabbed someone;
Threw cinderblocks off the roof;
Turned their apartment into the weight room of a gym;
Threw someone down a flight of stairs;
Turned their apartment into a disco.
All true, sadly true, completely true.
If you can do it, run, do not walk, to the nearest one family house you can buy. Well, I suppose, you can rent it too.
Monday, May 23, 2016
"Reality Bite for Apt. Bias": Daily News, May 23, 2016
There are reasons to like the Section 8 voucher program, and there are reasons not to. There is, however, a law that prohibits discriminating against renting to someone based on their lawful source of income. This includes, without limitation, Section 8 vouchers. (See the New York City Human Rights Law.)
While I don't have the legal citation in front of me, I believe it only applies to landlords whose buildings either contain six units or more, or landlords who own units in different buildings which, in the aggregate, exceed six units.
The Daily News reported today that several real estate firms were sued by the Attorney General for "apartment bias." The AG can only enforce a law that exists, and yeah, this one exists. Big time. And it has been on the books for years. So, owners and realtors: know the law.
While I don't have the legal citation in front of me, I believe it only applies to landlords whose buildings either contain six units or more, or landlords who own units in different buildings which, in the aggregate, exceed six units.
The Daily News reported today that several real estate firms were sued by the Attorney General for "apartment bias." The AG can only enforce a law that exists, and yeah, this one exists. Big time. And it has been on the books for years. So, owners and realtors: know the law.
Ups and Downs
The Sunday New York Times Real Estate section is informative, and it strikes me as a wonderful time capsule of the complaints, concerns and mumbled petulance of that rare breed, the New York City Dweller.
The complaint is not about a defective elevator or a landlord who is trying to drive out rent regulated tenants by dragging his or her feet (cloven hoofs?) while pretending to make repairs.
This week, someone is kvetching about their elevator being replaced.
The complaint is not about a defective elevator or a landlord who is trying to drive out rent regulated tenants by dragging his or her feet (cloven hoofs?) while pretending to make repairs.
While I don't think my parents or their friends had the answers (damn, I don't think they even knew the questions), I cannot imagine that hardy but twisted generation who lived through the Depression, World War II, the horrors of the concentration camps and the fear engendered by the atomic bomb whinging about repairs.
Yes, I can sympathize with someone who has to walk up 9 flights of stairs for several weeks.
But what to do? Er...........deal with it. Go out less. Ask a kid in the building to run errands. Plan your summer very carefully.
The real complaint, however, was not how to live with it, but how to pay for it. The tenants want to withhold rent, which actually makes sense. You pay for a service, you want that service. I get it.
And, at the same time, you want your elevator to work. If you are renting a condo unit, then you are asking the person who owns your unit (who does not control the elevator repairs), to take a hit.
And you are standing on your rights, as well you should, to a landlord who need not renew your non-rent regulated lease.
The person who answered this query in the Times had the best response, one which should be heeded by all. If you withhold your rent, you will be sued. If you are sued, that becomes part of a database. You are now on record as someone who did not pay his/her rent. You can explain this away easily to your next prospective landlord, and your interlocutor may sympathize, but they may not rent to you, either.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Rent Guideline Increases
As sure as the swallows will come back to Capistrano and the Boys of Summer will take the field, the Rent Stabilization Guidelines Board will meet and make no one happy.
It is a ritual, and we New Yorkers like our rituals as well as the next group of irate, overcrowded, paranoid and privileged group of city dwellers.
While our Byzantine rent regulations have been around longer than I have, it never changes. No, not one bit. It's "the rent is too damned high" vs. "landlords cannot make a living." The Mayor, be it Lindsay, Beame, Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, Bloomberg, or de Blasio, is a stooge and puppet of the landlords, or the tenants, depending on who you ask, or rather, who is braying their opinion at you.
The most recent Guidelines Board meeting resulted in a proposed current spread of increases of 0 to 2% for a one year lease renewal and 0.3% to 3.5% for a two year renewal. There is no final determination--that will come later amidst more cries and whimpers.
The final vote will come on June 27. Hopefully I will be at a ballgame: or watching the swallows
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)