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.
Nightcrawler, did you not say that only ONE apartment was not sold? Let me look back.
I thought I read that right?
Your Post #15 says:
the apt is RS, but once the tenant of the RS vacates, it becomes the market rate because this building is co-op and therefore the RS ends. Out of 32 apartments, this now leaves one RS tenant.
How many formerly stabilized units were converted to market rate instead of being sold?
If your landlord took the building co-op with the sole intention of continuing RENTING at market rents instead of SELLING the co-operative apartments, he is a crook and deserves to be royally screwed on the first of every month. Perhaps the judge recognized this.
This probably explains why this bastard is afraid to pursue the matter. Another judge might very well return all the market rate rentals to their former rent stabilized rent on the basis that the co-op conversion was a sham.
Nightcrawler,
You are not affected by your former landlord, aka sponsor, collecting a small stabilized tenant's rent or new market rate rents. Sponsor owes the co-op his share of the maintenance, not a penny more nor less, no matter how much he collects. If he stops paying maintenance the co-op sues and evicts him just like any other shareholder.
there are 32 families in our building.
only two apartments left are RS, the rest are owned by individuals mile myself and the rest are owned by the sponser (LL) this was a non eviction plan. when it went co-op tenats stayed and others bought.
meaning after the dead man, there is one RS apartment left
so as the years went by most of all the RS either died or moved, thus leaving the two RS apartment now, the dead man and one other woman.
I hope I explained that right
no, financially im not affected by this at all, but I just dont like the fact that these 2 men think they are entitled to an apartment that wasnt thiers in the first place, and I have a problem with that, and I want them out.
These men were not here 50 years like the dead man was, they are only here 2 years if that, and no, in my world they dont get the luxury of having a RS apartment, sorry, now if the daughter wanted to live there thats fine because she lived there as a child and moved when she got married, that to me is fair, it was her apartment.
Last edited by nightcrawler; 04-01-2019 at 11:40 AM..
I feel sorry for the elderly in this city who can't afford market rate rent! The elderly are treated like trash in this city and breaks my heart.
This situation is sticky and they should at the very least be paying the rent. I understand the landlord wants them out but if he is a decent person What the landlord should do is help them find resources for places to move being elderly.
while thats a nice thought, it really is not the LL's problem.
One of the mens nieces that i had said called and asked the LL if he could stay, well, let her try and find a residense for her Uncle, it shouldnt be the responsibility of the LL, dont ya think?
I fully intend to break every immoral law and take advantage of every "loophole" to ensure that every penny of whatever wealth I've amassed at the time of my death goes to my kids alone.
If leftists consider it a "handout" to help your own family instead of participating in the true "handout" system of spreading the wealth, that's their problem.
Way to go, Airborneguy! Unfortunately, I cannot give you an unlimited amount of reputation! I don't have kids myself (because I was responsible about the fact that I would not have been able to give them what I think one owes one's kids if one brings them into the world) - what, am I now expected to pay for continuation of the worthless genetic material of people who lack responsibility???
This is why Florida was invented. That's where the elderly are supposed to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by livingsinglenyc
I feel sorry for the elderly in this city who can't afford market rate rent! The elderly are treated like trash in this city and breaks my heart.
Not tricky at all, they have no legal right to the apartment. A housing court judge may take pity on them and, as they usually do, give them some time to move. But they have to get out.
Quote:
This situation is sticky and they should at the very least be paying the rent. I understand the landlord wants them out but if he is a decent person What the landlord should do is help them find resources for places to move being elderly.
See if they're covered under the squatter law. If they are it's going to be very hard to get rid of them.
They are definitely covered, I think it's a 30 day period of continuous residency. And since it's rent stabilized they automatically get a lifetime lease at the stabilized rate. Of course that's if they pay, if they don't then the landlord can move to evict. It's about a 6-8 month process before you get your judgement and can call the marshall. In the mean time, you touch any of their stuff and you risk going to jail
I fully intend to break every immoral law and take advantage of every "loophole" to ensure that every penny of whatever wealth I've amassed at the time of my death goes to my kids alone.
If leftists consider it a "handout" to help your own family instead of participating in the true "handout" system of spreading the wealth, that's their problem.
Sorry but DeBozo needs that money to buy bags for poor people and to help crazy people thrive
You're mixing up unrelated laws. If they're their 30 days or more, they can't just be thrown out as overstaying house guests. Whoever controls the property has to go to housing court and get and eviction. The LL will get the eviction, because they have no legal right to tenancy.
However, being their 30 days or more does NOT entitle them to be on the lease, and get succession rights. There is a whole other set of rules about that, and they do NOT qualify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlakeJones
They are definitely covered, I think it's a 30 day period of continuous residency. And since it's rent stabilized they automatically get a lifetime lease at the stabilized rate. Of course that's if they pay, if they don't then the landlord can move to evict. It's about a 6-8 month process before you get your judgement and can call the marshall. In the mean time, you touch any of their stuff and you risk going to jail
You're mixing up unrelated laws. If they're their 30 days or more, they can't just be thrown out as overstaying house guests. Whoever controls the property has to go to housing court and get and eviction. The LL will get the eviction, because they have no legal right to tenancy.
However, being their 30 days or more does NOT entitle them to be on the lease, and get succession rights. There is a whole other set of rules about that, and they do NOT qualify.
I think you might be wrong on this, but someone will surely confirm one way or another
Like that guy who managed to book an SRO room on the West side for 30 days and they had to give him a rent controlled lease in perpetuity
If they're their 30 days or more, they can't just be thrown out as overstaying house guests. Whoever controls the property has to go to housing court and get and eviction. The LL will get the eviction, because they have no legal right to tenancy.
However, being their 30 days or more does NOT entitle them to be on the lease, and get succession rights. There is a whole other set of rules about that, and they do NOT qualify.
On the other hand, these are human beings right in front of you. For some of you all, the government shouldn't be "robbing" you to take care of the poor when it's a general problem--personal charity should handle that!--but when it comes down to helping actual individuals, oh, no, that's the government's job. It all boils down to never wanting to reach into your own pocket. Hey, I like my money, too, but we can't have a society like that.
If it was me, in part to spare myself the expense of court proceedings, I'd try to work out an informal agreement with these guys. If you can't afford even a small "buyout," offer to let them stay for, say, two more years (paying the $400 rent), to give them time and space to find a place. Now, to be honest, in two years you may be back in the same place, with them not moving. But (a) if they're not well, this problem may solve itself, one way or another; and (b) you're going to look a lot more sympathetic to a judge during eviction proceedings if you do this first. Oh, and (c) your conscience will be much clearer in going to eviction.
No. Why should the landlord do this? The two men are in no way entitled to the apartment. This is the landlord’s property and he is totally in his right to remove people that do not belong there.
In a not so unrelated scenario, my friend’s father had a long time girlfriend. Though they were never married, he had written into his will that she has occupancy rights to the apartment (I believe a co-op he owned). It was a way to ensure that she wasn’t kicked out of the apartment even though the ownership of the co-op was passed on to the man’s children (who hated the girlfriend, ha!).
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.
Unfortunately, I cannot give you an unlimited amount of reputation! I don't have kids myself (because I was responsible about the fact that I would not have been able to give them what I think one owes one's kids if one brings them into the world) - what, am I now expected to pay for continuation of the worthless genetic material of people who lack responsibility???
