Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One couple found a way to make Manhattan affordable: not paying rent on their Chelsea loft for six years.
Digital-content producers Zachary Bennett and Karen Nourse quit paying the $4,754.02 monthly rent on their West 26th Street place back in 2010, according to a lawsuit.
They owe $410,000 in rent and electric charges, their landlord claims.
Theirs is the only residential loft in the nine-story building, where other units house art galleries or businesses.
The couple were month-to-month tenants before June 2010, when the state expanded the Loft Law, which is intended to protect people whose apartments are in mostly commercial or industrial buildings.
Bennett and Nourse, who have two children and run a video content company called KZ Films, claim they don’t have to pay rent because the building doesn’t have a residential certificate of occupancy, according to court papers.
“This building does not comply with the Loft Law,” said their lawyer, Margaret Sandercock. “The owner is not entitled to collect rent and my clients are not required to pay rent.”
It has been 80 months since the two paid rent or electric charges, the landlord — 513 West 26th Realty LLC — said in its Manhattan Supreme Court filing against the couple.
The Loft Law applies to buildings with at least three residential tenants — but Bennett and Nourse are in the building’s only non-commercial unit, said Harry Shapiro, the landlord’s lawyer.
If the couple won’t pay, they need to leave, Shapiro told The Post.
“They can stay if they pay,” he said, adding, “The unit is legal . . . We really don’t want to evict them. We just want them to pay the rent. They’re getting all the services but the landlord got zippo.”
Bennett and Nourse’s building is in a special district that requires only two or more residential units for a building to be covered by the Loft Law, said Sandercock. She claimed that at the time the law was changed, there were other residential tenants living there.
“For the building to be safe and legal for them to live in, the law requires the landlord to have a residential certificate of occupancy,” she said, adding that the landlord has not made any move to get the document.
The lawyer insisted the building is unsafe, but defended her clients’ choice to stay for years rent-free with a young family.
Something's fishy. If they haven't been evicted in 7 years then the landlord's playing some type of game as well.
Doesn't mean that the tenants aren't scumbags.
landlord mistake #1 renting to smart, conniving people that know how to trick the system and pay for a good lawyer
landlord mistake #2 not having a C/O, the landlord has a harder time evicting for not paying rent if he didnt have a C/O. Rental must have a C/O to collect rent in the first place. The landlord must have received the C/O recently and now has the justification to sue. Probably won't get all that back rent however, the judge will most likely give something.
Good for them. Unfortunate thing is that I bet they haven't set aside all that unpaid rent to make a down payment on owning something. So the joke's really on them.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Good for them. Unfortunate thing is that I bet they haven't set aside all that unpaid rent to make a down payment on owning something. So the joke's really on them.
They were paying 4k a month in rent before they did this. Being that they owe over 400k in rent, they should have SAVED enough to make a hefty downpayment, if not outright purchase. If they have not, their eventual eviction record, plus being in the news will preclude them from getting any nice rental.
landlord mistake #2 not having a C/O, the landlord has a harder time evicting for not paying rent if he didnt have a C/O. Rental must have a C/O to collect rent in the first place. The landlord must have received the C/O recently and now has the justification to sue. Probably won't get all that back rent however, the judge will most likely give something.
On the DOB site it just shows a single C/O from 1925 that is business only, not residential. FWIW, it also shows 41 open violations at the building. Landlord may have bigger fish to fry: Property Profile Overview
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
