Bill Would OK Harassment Suits Against Landlords

I agree with armchair. This will definitely lead to a lot of frivolous lawsuits. Every time a tenant has a bad hair day, they will decide to hire a hack lawyer to go after their landlord. Nine times out of ten the person bringing suit will be behind on his/her rent. Hopefully the law will set the bar high for standard of proof.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:10 AM

RC/RS needs to end ASAP

they are killing this city

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:19 AM

Great idea - except the law should make it required that in order to have standing on the lawsuit you have to pay all back rent into escrow and maintain full rent payment status for the life of the suit - if you fail to pay or are late by more than 2 weeks the escrow must go to the landlord and you have to start again.

Seems like a fair comprimise - of course it wont happen and if it did the number of suits would be negligible.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:19 AM

brilliant...another fine example of nyc housing law nonsense

landlord: hello your rent was due yesterday
tenant: i'm calling my lawyer
landlord: wtf
tenant: see you in court, you greedy scumbag

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:23 AM

That is a great idea 9:19. A great way to ensure that the tenant is not suing just because they can't pay the rent.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:26 AM

I think this is a great idea. It may help keep landlords on the straight-and-narrow. I read story after story about landlords who do everything "legally" in dealing with stabilized/controlled tenants yet use "tricks" that can be defined as harassment to drive those tenants out. I will be very happy to see these codes strengthened by the addition of an anti-harrassment law. I have no problem with the bar being high in terms of burden of proof or of a requirement that rent be current in order to proceed. Some of these landlords resort to egregious tactics. It is about time that more be done to keep lower and middle income people in the city. This would definitely be a step in the right direction. I am heartened to hear that this law is on the table.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:26 AM

"The would-be law has grown out of the citywide hemorrhage of affordable housing, because more and more tenants are claiming that landlords are trying to drive them out of rent-regulated apartments by systematically denying basic services like heat or hot water, according to renter advocacy groups."

This paragraph says it all people and it is true, my mom has been in a rent controlled apt. in FG for over 30 years, now that all the yuppies are moving in the landlord is starting to act funny with the heat and hot water,

remember people everyone cannot afford high rents and should not be deprived of basic needs, many new comers to BK/NY do not know much about this but for those of you who were born and raised in New York know that historically landlords have always moved out groups of people in order to maximize rent roll,

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:29 AM

no one has a right to live in nyc

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:32 AM

It's an excellent idea that's long overdue. It's very nice that most Brownstoner readers can afford things like their own building, but many of us can't, and that doesn't make us deficient human beings. Rent stabilization/control is responsible for keeping the tiny bit of NYC that's still interesting that way. Once you hedge-fundy/trustafarians take over (and I've no doubt that rent stabilization is on its way out), you'll find yourself in a hi-rise version of the suburbs you grew up in and maybe you'll miss us "poors." After all, who's going to educate your brats or pour your coffee once we're gone?

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:35 AM

Capitalism. Survival of the fittest. It works. Why is it that people feel that they are entitled to a low rent?

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:41 AM

Rent control and rent stablization are known problems within the NYC economy. It is a well accepted prinicple by almost every economist that rent control and rent stablization actually increase th ecost of living in New York. Any argument that it is necessary to allow those less fortunate to live inthis great city and maintain a diverse community is naive. In actuality, and this is widely accepted, the individuals in the rent control or rent stablization are the most fortunate individuals living in the city. This does not mean that rc/rs tenants are all living high on the hog, merely that they are lving at th eexpense of others, INCLUDING MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T HAVE HIGH INCOMES. These are truly less fortunate, because they cannot gain access to a rc/rs tenancy, which is not based on salary, but instead when the house was erected, and what type of units were put in place. As a result of rc/rs, the less fortunate individuals have to pay much higher rents, which actually makes it worse for lower income individuals to live in this city and greatly reduces diversity. Rent control laws are on the way out. The NY legislature has already implented laws that will eventually remove all rent control tenants. To pass a law to protect a ancient and admitted defecient law is ludicrous and irresponsible.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:58 AM

Every time the heat breaks the tenants are going to scream harassment -- makes being a mom&pop landlord virtually impossible.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 10:01 AM

I agree with everyone above. The landlord owns the building after all. He can turn off the water for 12 hours every day if he wants. Property rights are paramount, after all. If the tenants don't like it, they should buy their own apartment building.
/snark

Sheesh. Might be nice if somebody would actually look up what this bill says. That could make a whole lot of difference, depending on how it defines harassment. I personally don't think the law is strong enough in providing only a $5000 civil fine; that's peanuts to a landlord trying to drive out tenants.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 10:19 AM

Well, here we go again with the unsupported, ridiculous statements about rent protections in New York City.

9:58: you claim rc/rs is a "known problem" and that it is an "accepted principle" that rent protection raises the cost of living in the city. But you cite nothing besides your own opinion.

I sincerely doubt that anytime a rent protected tenant has "a bad hair day" they'll try to claim harassment, 9:10, but maybe you say that because it's what you'd do.

BTW, the argument that rc/rs tenants feel "entitled" to low rent has no basis in fact. What rent protected tenants do feel entitled to are the protections of law. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Finally--and this should be important to many of the forum posters looking for cheap prices on their renovations: Abolish rent protections in NY and I guarantee you'll be paying more and waiting longer to have that soapstone countertop installed. Just sayin'.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 10:29 AM

In virtually every building it is IMPOSSIBLE to shut off the heat and/or hot water to the RS/RC (or below market tenants) so the idea that in a gentrifying building the LL is trying to drive out the poorer tenants in favor of attracting wealthier tenants by denying such basic services is just not feasible. Unless of course the LL is willing to deny heat and hot water to his market rate tenants as well - which doesn't strike me as a very intelligent policy.

Tenants who dont pay rent on time (or at all) will and do use every method to avoid being evicted. If you add to the arsenal of these professional deadbeats without adequate protections, this new provision will be abused.

Lest you think that this only affects the LL and the 'bad tenants' - realize that years ago, credit and background checks, income verifications and co-signers were rare. However given the ASTRONOMICAL cost and time to evict people who refuse to abide by their lease, it is now mandatory for any decent building. So the next time you pay $50-$150 to simply APPLY for a rental apartment remember why!

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 10:49 AM

Believe it or not, there are advanced degree holding, tax paying, almost middle-class folks living in RS apartments. My husband and I are teachers – obviously we don’t make a lot of money, but we would like to live within 45 minutes of the schools where we teach.

Due to the shoddy workmanship of plumbers hired by our landlord, our entire building was without gas for two months. Workers would come and go without notice or updates from our landlord and I felt very unsafe. When I respectfully requested 24 hours notice before workers showed up at our apartment, the landlord threatened to evict me.

If we were not in a RS apartment, I have no doubt that our landlord would refuse to renew our lease and we would have to reconsider our commitment to trying to improve the city’s public schools.

All we asked for was to be treated with respect. We pay our rent on time. We are quiet and request little from the landlord or super. We simply need more time to save the tens of thousands of dollars for a down payment on our own home in this city. We don’t have parents to give us a down payment. We saw all the crazy mortgage schemes in the last few years and decided not to partake in something we new we could not afford in the long run.

The vitriol shown on this forum toward renters is incredibly disheartening. We don’t want something for nothing. We simply want the services we pay for.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 11:19 AM

9:19 has got it. The system should be fair and offer protection for renters AND landlords.

-- A landlord

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 11:24 AM

Here's a related question. I lived in a small self-managed co-op with three rent-stabilized tenants. The absentee sponsor/landlord obviously wants to get rid of the tenants because he pays more in maintenance than he receives in rent. Additionally, the landlord has done little if anything to maintain these apts. However, if the tenants complain to HPD about any repairs inside their apartments, it is the co-op and not the absentee sponsor/landlord that is notified/liable to make said repairs. Therefore, the co-op is caught in the middle of a bitter battle b/w landlord and tenant. How can the co-op address this problem?

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 11:37 AM

I'm a foreigner, so pardon the question. Do owners of buildings with RC/RS units get some sort of major tax break or subsidy to help cover the normal increases in their property taxes and expenses?

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 11:56 AM

Not to count your money but you brought it up - if you and your husband have advanced degrees you EASILY are making a combined income of 120K a year, plus generous benefits and 2-3mo off to allow you to earn more.

By most definitions you are well established in the upper reaches of the 'middle class' and should be able to afford a non-stabilized apartment in the 3,000+ a month price range

- sorry but I fail to see why you are entitled to a below market-rate apartment subsidized by an individual landlord (although for the record - I do support RS w/ vacancy decontrol to allow neighborhoods to maintain some stability.)

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:04 PM

As someone who was harrassed (not because he wanted me to move, but because he was an asshole) by my last landlord, I think this law is good. Anything to make someone be a reasonable human being when it doesn't come naturally.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:05 PM

All the rent stabilization/control haters who post here really should read this:

http://www.maketheroad.org/article.php?ID=359

This article reports on vicious harrassment of low-income tenants in Bushwick. I read a comment here recently about how putting a face on this issue changes things. Well, this article shows you some faces and lives.

I'm not a fan of rent stabilization as a way to ensure that lower and middle income have housing. I'd rather see a substantial increase in Section 8 vouchers. But there's no question that we need to provide some means for poor to middle income people to be able to afford decent housing.

I doubt that most of you have the slightest idea of the lousy housing conditions and options faced by the people who clean your houses and babysit your children. Never mind the elderly and disabled among us. I work in a housing program for people with special needs. I have had people nearly weep when shown a tiny studio apartment with a wall kitchen only a half size refrigerator, for which they pay 30% of their income. These folks are coming from utterly dilapidated SROs.

Show me anywhere in the country where the free market has solved the problem of housing for the lower end of the income spectrum.

The disdain on this website for low & middle income people is really remarkable. The second gilded age indeed. If you recall, the first one didn't end so well.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:25 PM

"I'm a foreigner, so pardon the question. Do owners of buildings with RC/RS units get some sort of major tax break or subsidy to help cover the normal increases in their property taxes and expenses?"

Rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments are subject to annual increases in rent as set by the NYC Rent Guildlines Board. These increases are pegged to the increases in landlord costs. Also, once the rent reaches a certain level through these regular increases, it is de-stabilized.

When a building with RC/RS units is sold, the owner is or should be well aware of the laws regarding these apartments. The fact that these apartments may not command market rents is (or should be) factored into the amount paid for the building.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:31 PM

Thank you, 12:25.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:37 PM

rent control and rent stabilization are crap. anti-american. do away with it all. it is biased towards the young and those new to the city.
why should one person have to foot the bill for another. go live in a building you can afford.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:40 PM

Well 12:04 PM, since I did bring up money, I have to say that you haven’t looked at the teacher’s contract lately. (It’s posted for all to see at UFT.org.) There is no way we could pay 3k a month in rent.

This year we will just break 100k for the first time (yay, we can pay more on our student loans). I don’t think the $1436 we pay for a RS one bedroom in a non-gentrified section of Washington Heights is that far under market. Unless you think the market would put a premium on the hooker on our corner who occasionally brings work into our stairwell.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:42 PM

no one should have the right to live in 1300 sq ft for $240 / month

no one

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:47 PM

12:25 I know very well the conditions that moderate income people face, since I own some of the buildings they live in. And for less than $1,000 they can get a large pre-war 1BR with new kitchens (with ceramic floors new appliances inc a dishwasher), all new bathrooms (with porcelain tile wainscotting & new plumbing), refinished hardwood floors in buildings with video intercoms, new laundry facilities, upgraded pre-war lobbies and elevators.

Sure there are some horrible landlords and sure $975 isnt accessible to all but any couple making over 35k a year (who has decent credit and has NEVER been to LL/Tnt Ct can afford a very nice apartment in NYC within 35 minute subway ride of Midtown.

This law is dangerous as proposed - It is already impossible to 'take a chance' on a less than steller application and forget about a working section 8 person. Once they move in you virtually CANNOT get them out (no matter what they do), so you have to be 100% sure before you give a lease. As a result good but marginal (credit and income) people are forced to live in the worst buildings. If this law was passed - the checks would have to be even more stringent and this city would be more inaccessible to the people you claim to want to help.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 12:52 PM

12:42 - 1st if your apartment is near market then MOVE if the LL isnt giving you essential services - secondly if you are just making 100K combined with graduate degrees then you are very young and clearly havent been working very long (less than 3yrs) so again if you are making over 100K (with full benefits and 2-3mo OFF) at less than 3yrs in your career you are clearly much better than middle class and you really shouldnt be relying on a private LL to subsidize your housing (not that you shouldn't take advantage of the law if it lets you - just that the law is wrong and isnt helping who it should)

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 1:02 PM

1:02 PM: We are without a doubt moving. My point is that there are plenty of law-abiding decent people in RS apartments. We aren’t all unemployed grubbers paying $300 for a classic six. We are teachers, cops, carpenters, office managers, etc.

I’m actually for getting rid of RC and RS. Once no one is around to perform all the services in the city maybe there will be true housing reform.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 1:19 PM

Thi city has almost 1 MILLION RS/RC apartments. If rent regulation was to disappear tomorrow, think what it would do to the market - rents will inveitably go down making housing much more affordabl for everybody. This would clearly help lower income families that currently do not have a regeluated apt, but also some of those who pay close to market rents for a RS one.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 2:10 PM

Capitalism. Survival of the fittest. It works. Why is it that people feel that they are entitled to a low rent?

I don't think that is the technical definition of Capitalism.
But by those questions, why should a landlord or developer get subsidies? We don't? Maybe if people had the same breaks these guys get then it wouldn't matter. Subsidies by their very nature ( though I think important) are not "letting the market" decide. So a better question is why should a building owner and landlord be untouchable, when their products are crappy, and they don't do their job?

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 2:16 PM

10:29.

To clear up any misconception. R/C in NYC is actually accepted as having a negative impact on the cost of renting in NYC by almost universally every economist. By any Economics 101 test book and under the supply and demand section, NYC will often be used as an example to show that R/C tenancies actually reduce the supply of afforable rentals, which increases the cost of rentals for everyone who is not residing in a r/c apartment. If want sites, just go to Barnes and Noble, and open every text book on economics.

You can also look up the legislative minutes which amended the r/c laws to limit the passage to a family member only once, thereby gradually removing r/c from the City. This proposition is again discussed during those discussions.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 3:50 PM

3:50

Ah, you're back. But you still haven't produced a single article by an economist, or a study by an economic think-tank, that supports the claim that rc/rs is "actually accepted as naving a negative impact on the cost of renting in NYC". Instead, you suggest we consult any economics textbook. I think, however, that if such documentation could be found, you'd be supplying it. Some months ago, during the last thread about rc/rs, I posted a study which shows that after rent controls were eliminated in Boston, rents went up across the board. And that's just what would happen in NY.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 4:38 PM

4:38: I'd love to see that link/citation for the Boston study posted again. I too am skeptical of the often repeated and oversimplified assertion that a just and affordable housing market distribution will necessarily emerge once rc/rs is dismantled.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 5:34 PM

1st. To the teachers, try the teacher next door/officer next door program. It is a pain in the neck and lots of leg work but can pay off when you get a house for half price. Just don't think you are going to get a house in a trendy area.
2nd. My mom owns a home out of state. She also has a three bedroom with garage parking and a terrace facing the Verrazano that she rents for $1100 which includes all utilities except for electricity. On her retirement income and investments she can afford to pay the $1100 easily. Several of the older people in her building do the same. They don't even sublet! The younger families with children are in the smaller apartments while older people have enough space for four kids. My college aged son has been on her lease since High School when he stayed with her during the week to shorten his commute. I guess it will become his eventually. Works for me. But I think destabilization would be more fair.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 5:54 PM

I occupy the upstairs triplex in my two family house in Fort Greene, and if this bill passes, based on past experience with a downstairs tenant, I will simply take my garden floor apartment off the market altogether. It's not worth the risk. Why? Because I've been there and done that, bigtime. Several years ago I unwittingly rented to a serial tenant with perfect credit and references, all of which turned out to be fraudulent. His pattern in every apartment he'd rented was the same: get a lease in a two family house with a single owner occupier upstairs so it was his word against the landlord's with no other witnesses, pay rent for about two months, then refuse to pay any more, based on claims of harassment and denial of services. It took a private eye to track down his true history, including assault of his prior (senior citizen)landlord in another neighborhood with a dangerous weapon (while THEY were in landlord tenant court under similar circumstances); trespassing in the apartment of the landlady before that (the lady was so infirm she couldn't document whether anything was missing, just that she'd been threatened); resisting arrest in the attack case when the prior landlord reported it to the police;and two weeks in jail for that attack(record sealed).

And how did he justify the denial of services complaints against landlords? Very simple: he turned off the valves on his radiators in the middle of the winter, waited till his apartment was freezing, and called the City to complain. Worked like a charm every time. After the inspectors left, he just opened the valves and was toasty warm again. Not only that, he called PACC and I was suddenly getting phone calls from that organization (to which I used to DONATE for god's sake) informing me that he'd enlisted them to MEDIATE his complaints, and that they were very concerned that a "tenant was being displaced," yadda, yadda. I told PACC (which had never even come over to inspect his apartment, thank you) to stick it in their ear - I'd been in Clinton Hill and involved in community activities for sixteen years, he'd been here for six months, but suddenly because he was a TENANT he was presumed to be the injured party and I was the vile capitalist. If they HAD bothered to inspect, they would have seen a beautiful (completely restored, all original) apartment, complete with plaster, parquet and original fireplaces, private garden access, etc.. But PACC didn't inspect either the complainant or the apartment, just knee-jerked in his support despite the fact that he was a complete grifter with a criminal record. Then he set about his usual extortion tactics, which he'd used to get settlements out of his previous landlords in exchange for agreeing to vacate (after reviewing the files my PI unearthed, I actually called and spoke to a couple of them; not only were they too terrified of this guy to testify - the settlements he'd negotiated with them compelled them to give him favorable recommendations to his next victims, plus cash, in exchange for moving out). He yelled nonstop all night long so none of my neighbors could sleep (threatening to kill his girlfriend, screaming about his miserable childhood,etc.), blasted music all hours of the day, and accused some of the neighbors of harassing HIM for telling him to please pipe down. I figure he'd probably been living rent free for at least ten years, just repeating the same scam till he got a settlement and moved on to his next victim. The neighbors were calling begging me to get rid of him, and all I could say was, "I'm trying, believe me, our next court hearing is in two weeks...." It got a lot worse than that...and like his prior landlords, I ended up paying him to leave because he made it so frightening to live in my own house and there was no recourse in landlord tenant court, from the police (did I mention he filed a harassment complaint against ME with the 88th on the basis that he "felt insecure" in the apartment?) - no help anywhere.

When we settled, the judge leaned over the bench and instructed him to "be sure that when you turn in your keys, you get a receipt to protect yourself." What a joke. I changed the locks three minutes after he was gone and counted myself lucky to have survived the experience. That was when I stopped giving leases. But now the City of NY wants to make it even easier for scam artists to engage in this kind of behavior? Thanks, but I'll just turn the garden floor apartment into a lovely guest suite and home office.

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 7:02 PM

7:02 again here. A couple other techniques I neglected to mention: unscrewing cover plates on electrical outlets and yanking the wires out of the wall, then claiming that "electrical service was dangerous," but refusing to admit an electrician to address the problem (claiming that being compelled to admit an electrician to fix the dangerous situation created by the tenant constituted "harassment"); dumping garbage down the toilet and then claiming that the plumbing didn't function properly, but refusing to admit plumbers, ditto; and so on. The housing court judge's response was that we could schedule an inspection of the apartment within three months. I figured by that time the apartment would be totally trashed and possibly torched (the tenant also had a penchant for altars and candles, and remarked occasionally what a pity it would be if the house caught fire). It hadn't occurred to me to take "before" pictures and have the tenant give me a document attaching the photos and attesting to the fact that this was the condition in which the apartment was rented. So it was cheaper to settle and be done with it for the sake of both my sanity and the safety and preservation of the house I'd worked so hard to restore.

This bill's restriction to "three lawsuits in a ten year period" is completely useless as a tool for protecting landlords against this kind of scam - as long as you're one of the three, you're hosed. And in my case, to the best of my knowledge, I was the third in four years; the only reason I wasn't the fourth was that the case immediately preceding mine had taken over a year in court (during which time the tenant was occupying the apartment in question, and not paying a dime in rent).

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 7:59 PM

If anyone wanted proof of abuse of the RS/RC system by those who can obviously afford to pay more, Bianca Jagger is finally losing her RS Park Ave apt:

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/10/18/2007-10-18_bianca_jaggers_landlord_can_evict_her_co.html

LOL!

Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 9:47 PM

No one is probably reading this post anymore, but in case they are, here's the response to the "show me the study" claim:

http://www.nber.org/~luttmer/rentcontrol.pdf

And it's nothing new. We've known this at least since the 1970s:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3808(197211%2F12)80%3A6%3C1081%3AAEAORC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R

(In fact, we've known it for longer than that, but I'd have to cite an economist whose name would likely incite a flame war on this board.)

Just go to scholar.google.com, type in "economics rent control," and you'll see that the inefficiency of rent control is well-established.

Posted by: guest at October 28, 2007 10:34 AM