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.

You Can't Spell Cooperation Without Co-Op

If my father taught me anything (and there are those in authority who will say he did not), it was to not be rude.

Being rude is unkind, and unless you are running for President, it is almost guaranteed to produce results other than what you intended or hoped for.

Well, perhaps the paterfamilias was wrong.

If you own a co-op unit in New York, and faithfully pay your bank loan, you still may not be able to sleep the blissful sleep of a child.  People who default on their monthly maintenance payments to the co-operative run the risk of having the co-op (or their counsel) contact their bank.

An aggrieved co-op, asserting a lien on the shares for unpaid maintenance, will often be made whole by the bank, who then adds that debt to the unit owner’s bank debt.  The bank then seeks to be made whole by the co-op owner.  It is a good gig if you can get it, and co-op boards do need their funds.

I represent a co-op board with such a defaulting unit owner: the kind that pays his or her bank charges but thinks nothing of stiffing the board.

I located the bank and sent them a letter, asking them to recognize our lien for unpaid charges and seeking to be paid in full.  Nothing.

I sent the letter again.  More nothing.

I located their phone number and called, and the machine I left a message with likewise ignored me.

I found an email address and….wait for it……….the bank failed to respond to me.

The other day, on a warm Sunday, I was sitting in my office feeling sorry for myself while all the other kids were out playing.

I came across that email.  The one the bank ignored.  Not once, but twice.

Feeling pretty powerful, hiding behind my computer screen, I hit “enter” again and again and again and again.  I must have sent that message to the bank a half-dozen times.

“That’ll teach them, “ I said (to no one) and did a victory lap in my office.

When I next looked at my computer screen, I found an apologetic email from the bank, assuring me they would contact me Monday, which they did.  Several days later, I was speaking with the bank’s lawyers, working on the fine points of getting my client paid.

So, I guess being childish and petulant pays off after all.  I wonder if anyone needs a running mate in 2017?

About Howard Poch, Esq.

I grew up in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn and graduated from the State
University of New York at Binghamton (it's now called Binghamton University) with a B.A. in English/Rhetoric. I have always had a great interest in literature and filmmaking. (Back in the
1970's, New York City was full of small, repertory cinemas featuring nothing but classic
American films, foreign films and documentaries: those days are sadly gone.) I considered
getting a Masters in Literature and teaching, or attending film school after college. However, I was equally intrigued by the Law classes I took at SUNY Binghamton and decided to attend law school instead.

I graduated from Brooklyn Law School and was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1985.
I began my law career in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, as an associate in the Law Offices of Samuel L. Hagan. I became a partner in the firm of Hagan, Poch & Coury and practiced there till 1995,
when I founded and was principal of the Law Offices of Howard Poch for 16 years. With Lance Luckow, we founded Poch & Luckow, P.C. to emphasize our focus on Real Estate Law and
Litigation and Commercial Litigation.

I have lectured before members of the Brooklyn Bar Association on topics related to Estate
Formation and Landlord-Tenant Law. I am also a member of the networking group BNI
(www.bni.com), and attend their weekly breakfast meetings here in New York City.
I've been in business for a long time and have seen conditions change radically in the New York real estate market, from the "boom" years of the early 80s, when a buy and sell mania gripped the city, to the ensuing period when the bottom dropped out of the market. Everything moves in
cycles, neighborhoods go from cold to hot and back again, and while investing in property is
generally a good idea, it pays to understand the particularities of the New York real estate market.

This market is, in many ways, unique, due to the size of the city and other factors, and there are many regulations that apply here that are different from those in other areas. New York City is
located in New York State, but buying, selling and renting real estate in NYC is a totally different animal from doing the same in other parts of the state. Over the years I have represented or dealt with landlords, tenants, management companies, agencies, brokers and consultants and
understand the business from a variety of angles and know how to tailor my research and advice depending upon the particular situation of my client. From 30 years of experience in real estate
litigation, I know what the law mandates, what works and what doesn't, how to negotiate the
maze of rules and regulations, what agencies to contact for information, and how to deal with the unexpected situations that inevitably arise when dealing with New York City real estate issues.
One constant through my many years of practice in real estate litigation is that I make it a point to be both available and understandable. I can be reached by phone or email at any time, and I make every attempt to respond as soon as possible.

I don't believe in leaving people hanging or making them wait. I also don't believe in excessive "legalese". I want to make sure that I am understood. If someone has little background or experience with legal concepts, I am careful to sit down with them and explain, in plain English, what is going on. It's frustrating to feel that someone is talking down to you or speaking in a language that you don't understand, and I make every effort to ensure that this does not occur. I want all Poch & Luckow, P.C. clients to be well-informed and confident that I am serving their needs properly.

I enjoy legal research, and after years in the field with particular areas of specialization, have become a resource for other attorneys, who contact me to ask my opinion when they are involved in a case that relates to more obscure areas of real estate or landlord-tenant law. I can point them to particular cases or give them examples from Poch & Luckow, P.C files.

When I'm not working, I have continued with another early interest, movies, and enjoy seeing films (and writing the occasional film review). I also pursue my interest in literature and try to keep up with a long list of books that I do plan to read--someday! I have taken guitar lessons and would like to take a refresher class or two. Travel is another passion. Berlin is my favorite city and I enjoy traveling to Europe. Closer to home, I spend a fair amount of time in the Finger Lakes Region of New York State and often travel to Carolina Beach, North Carolina and Delray Beach, Florida to visit friends and relatives and enjoy time by the beach.

Charities I donate to include Doctors Without Borders www.doctorswithoutborders.org , A Purrfect World (Bloomfield, New Jersey), www.apurrfectworld.org, PAWS (Montclair, New Jersey), www.pawsmontclair.org, Alley Cat Allies, www.alleycat.org, Ahimsa House,
www.ahimsahouse.org, and the Mountain Lion Foundation, www.mountainlion.org.

Pete Dexter, Redux

I recently wondered out loud (I know my audience is pretty much myself) about Pete Dexter.
I did not like, very much, the recent film "God's Pocket," but I thought I would read Dexter.
I tried "Paris Trout" (they give National Book Awards for that?  I read this the same week that I finally read
"Goodbye, Columbus"--Roth's excellent first book), and then I read "The Paperboy," and yet, I read on and
read "God's Pocket."

The version of the book that I borrowed from the library (could not find the book in any store, at all) has a quote on the cover, from Richard Price.  This, I thought, is a good sign: Price is one of the best dialogue writers alive today.  (Or so I think.)

"God's Pocket" suffers from the same limitations as his other books--the characters are mostly flat, and distant.  I find it nearly impossible to understand who they are, what they are thinking or why they do the things they do.  But, the dialogue in this book is as good as a Price book, which is saying a lot (or so I think).

At least the book makes a damn bit more sense than the film and it is a good and strange story.

So, until the new Richard Price book comes out, go read Dexter's "God's Pocket."

Rent Regulation: When Is A Building “Completed”?

February 24, 2014 

RENT REGULATION: WHEN IS A BUILDING “COMPLETED”?

Whether or not a building is subject to Rent Regulation can hinge on when that building was completed. If a building was completed prior to January 1, 1974 that building will be rent regulated.

But what does “completed” mean?

Our firm discovered that in a holdover proceeding in which the landlord claimed the building was not rent regulated since the certificate of occupancy was issued after January 1, 1974, a temporary certificate of occupancy had been issued prior to January 1, 1974.

Our firm represented the tenant.

After trial, the trial court ruled that in conformance with prior DHCR rulings (unrelated to this case) and based on related case law, the date of the issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy was the operative date for determining when a building was complete.  The Court ruled that the building was in fact rent regulated, and dismissed the proceeding.  (Gaia by the Park LLC v. Near, NY Civ Ct., 69808/2011, NYLJ 1202551386494, April 4, 2012.)

The Appellate Term upheld the trial court: NY Slip Op 23257: July 31, 2013.

…and the Appellate Term just denied the landlord leave to appeal on February 11, 2014.

         Poch & Luckow, P.C. has moved

  

We’ve moved!

As of April 1st, 2014, our new address is:

Poch & Luckow, P.C.

15 Maiden Lane, Suite 1405

New York, New York 10038

The phone number remains the same: 212/344-4184.