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.
I spoke to a tenants lawyer today and he informed me that I could easily sue for 3x the 6 days rent since the apartment is still under lease to me, regardless of anything else. I think his 20+ years experience knows better than you do.
I spoke to a tenants lawyer today and he informed me that I could easily sue for 3x the 6 days rent since the apartment is still under lease to me, regardless of anything else. I think his 20+ years experience knows better than you do.
There is no such recourse based on your situation as you outlined it to us.
So, they only choices in this matter are:
1. You lied to your attorney about the facts,
or
2. You lied to us about what the attorney said.
or
3. You found your attorney on a park bench holding a sign saying "LeeGell Add-vise $1".
New York State landlord tenant laws, New York State Code of Civil Procedures, NYC Rent Guideline regulations and case law on similar scenarios DO NOT support what you are saying. Somewhere in this whole thing is a BIG FAT LIE. But I guess that's something you have no moral issue with.
Got the 6 days rent just now in cash. The landlord admitted he was in the wrong.
This situation was real simple people.
I had the apartment leased to me until 11:59pm on July 31, 2015. Therefore, I am entitled to all use of it until then.
If they wanted to do something where the new tenant moved in early, it would have needed my permission.
I had offered them the use of it early, but only if they had notified me so that something can be worked out... Not for the landlord to get his greedy hands on 2 rents for 6 days... But the landlord decided "what he doesn't know won't hurt him" and decided to have the new tenant move in early without my knowledge. What if I still had property in the apartment when the new tenant moved in?? What if I still had plans to use the apartment for the remaining days?? Obviously I didn't have anything in it, and didn't have any use of it... But the moral of the story is this: I offered for something to be worked out if the new tenant wanted to be moved in early. I didn't hear anything back on that end, therefore it was null.
I show up to the apartment to just find that the new tenant is moving in, has a copy of MY KEYS to MY APARTMENT that was CURRENTLY UNDER LEASE TO ME.
Don't any of you see the wrong in that? Don't feed me the "when you moved your stuff out, you surrendered it" BS. No, when it's 11:59pm July 31 I surrendered it, unless I okay it, which I never did.
Not only could I have successfully sued the landlord, but so could the new tenant as well.
You simply do not lease ONE apartment to TWO people at the SAME TIME.
To all of you that were fairly against me on this. I hope you aren't landlords yourselves, but I have reason to believe since there is a "landlord can't be wrong mentality" among many on here. Someday, you will find yourself in a court battle and losing it if that attitude is relayed to your tenants.
I get it and I know where you are coming from. I agreed all along that you were owed that overlap in rent. I saw where you stated that IF the LL wanted to rent the apt out sooner to contact you and something could be worked out and that you did not just surrender the apt to the LL.
'
And I am a tenant myself plus I also work on the LL end of things renting apts, dealing with leases and tenant issues and we always look at both sides of things and play fair and by the laws. Luckily the property owner that I work with has the same philosophy as well. It just makes for a better outcome all around with a lot less headaches, stress, turnover and you end up with much happier, informed and cooperative tenants with very few problems. I have seen far too many tenants being taken advantage of or they don't know the laws or they don't know they have any rights or that they are worth fighting for, for that matter.
The poster may be coming across somewhat brashly at this point, but I am puzzled why so many seem to think that written lease terms can so easily be broken by either party without a signed and counter signed agreement modifying the terms? The lease can't be one sided and only allow the tenant to accidentally give up their tenancy yet not allow them to simply leave whenever.
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.
