Forum
« Help! Plaster medalion looks like it is about to fall and take ceiling with it! Donate a dryer »
December 12, 2007
Can my landlord evict me?
I have a lease until the end of July 2008 and I've paid my rent on time for over 2 years. My landlord is selling the building and is now in contract with the new owners; she thinks they'll close by the end of January 2008, about 6 weeks from now, and the new owners want me out by the time they close.
Does New York State law allow a landlord to just kick a tenant out because they have sold the building? My understanding was that a new owner can have a current tenant evicted ONLY if the new owner is moving into the dwelling as is. It's a 3-storey/2-apartment brownstone right now, and the new owner wants to turn the two apts into one single-family dwelling, and I think this falls outside the parameters of a 'legal eviction' of a current tenant.
My landlord has offered to compensate me so that I'll leave early and I'm willing to consider that, but I'm not sure how much $$ to ask for. What can I expect? What are my rights under NY State law?
Comments
Any new owner must honor your current lease until it expires. If you wanna be a nice person and help the seller(assuming you leaving makes or breaks his sale), offer him to pay your first and last months rent in your new place. any new owner does not want to have the building occupied and will usually require the seller to have the building vacated. Basically, the ball is in your court and the seller needs you. Dont let the seller make you feel obligated to move.
Posted by: brolic84 at December 12, 2007 1:58 PM
You're entitled to stay there until the end of your lease. Sounds to me like your landlord has made promises to the prospective owner that he cannot keep.
If your still being there prejudices the sale to the extent that the buyers can contractually back out, and do so, your landlord, in this downturning market, will probably have trouble in finding another purchaser willing to pay the same kind of money for the house. That situation would be the one that would give you the greatest leverage in seeking compensation. On the other hand, the new owner might just suck up your presence, go through with the purchase, and resign themselves to waiting seven months before starting their renovation. The fact that the current owner has made some kind of monetary offer to you already, though, kind of suggests that the latter scenario is not likely.
Posted by: johnife at December 12, 2007 2:03 PM
what the previous poster said. ask them for something but not too much. maybe a months worth of rent and moving cost.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at December 12, 2007 2:04 PM
You have the power, NYC is very favorable to tenants and you have a signed contract. However, you have no right to stay passed the lease and so you might as well move now. January/February is a lousy time to rent an apartment, but at least if you see something nice there won't be much competition to get it.
If I were you, I'd tell your landlord you plan on staying until the end of the lease as is your contractual right. However, say if he'd like to buy you out of the contract, you're willing to consider an offer. I'd be looking to get 3 months rent in your position. Make him make you the offer. How long has he/she owned the building - if more than a few years, they've made a bundle in capital gains. Play hardball as time is on your side in the sense he wants you out by closing. The longer you remain on the fence, the higher his offer will go. So tell the landlord what I said above, start looking, wait for him to make you an offer, take some more time to consider and continue looking.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at December 12, 2007 2:07 PM
I agree with the above, but i would also take a look at your lease and see if it addresses the event of the house being sold. Usually a sale changes nothing but who knows.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 2:07 PM
Your just a renter and DONT ever forget that
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 2:10 PM
Yes, unless your lease specifically says that it is void if the building is sold, you absolutely have the right to stay until the end of your lease.
I would tell your landlord you will start looking, but make no promises until you find something good. Then ask for some compensation to move early.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 2:23 PM
I thought this was an interesting question, as I know the last two leases I've signed have specifically said that the lease is voided if the owner sells the property, and they are only obligated to give me 30 days notice. I would double check your lease, just to make sure. Otherwise, I say take the money and run. Sure, its inconvenient to move early, but like the other posters said, you are going to need to move anyway. Three months rent seems fair to me. Your landlord will not want to fight you in court.
Posted by: rjlovie at December 12, 2007 2:46 PM
Remember this is primarily a site of owners and wannabee owners. Take all advice with a grain of salt...
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at December 12, 2007 4:00 PM
I'm an owner, but I'm not positive that even if there was some line in lease that said it was void if the building were sold, that clause would stand if it wasn't obvious. I think it might be worth talking to a lawyer if that was the case -- especially if it is buried somewhere you'd easily miss. Rjlovie -- are you saying you signed a lease that really only obligates you to pay, but you can actually be kicked out in 30 days? That doesn't sound very good, unless you got a great deal.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 4:11 PM
Doesn't the standard lease give a 30 day "out" clause when buildings are sold? Obviously your landlord may not use a form lease but if he did, its likely covered.
That doesn't mean he won't have to take you to court to evict. So he may be offering some compensation just to avoid that. I don't know what would be standard but any reasonable sum is better than getting nothing in a few months in my opinion.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at December 12, 2007 4:38 PM
a rule of thumb in real estate is $10,000 per year remaining on the lease.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 4:49 PM
Actually, as long as the new owner is going to occupy the apartment, they CAN evict you, even if they're changing the occupancy. That's what happened to that big building on East 7th street--a whole family bought it, wanted to occupy the whole thing--the tenants fought it, but lost.
I'd ask for something REASONABLE (Like first and last on your new place or something). You probably won't win if you go to court, and if you ask for something crazy (like 10k) it's better for the landlord to go to court. But if you ask for something reasonable, you'll probably get it. What are they offering? Might be nice to get a number from them first, so you can see what ballpark they're in.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 5:24 PM
You are getting inaccurate advice here. You can stay there till the end of your lease unless there is something specific written into the lease but it is not in a standard lease. The landlord's problem isn't your problem. Really. Legally, you are completely protected by your lease. If your landlord really wants to buy you out, you have some leverage but you absolutely don't have to move if you don't want to. If you don't mind moving, negotiate something good for yourself. If you want to feel a little better about the situation, see a lawyer about this and bring your lease. Call Marc Aronson on Smith Street.
Posted by: donatella at December 12, 2007 6:55 PM
I'm not at all sure much of the above advice is correct. We had the same experience about 5 years ago - and the owner of the building had the right. It was written into the lease (30 days notice if building was sold), AND as long as the new buyer could prove they were going to take over the entire house for personal use, we had to leave. We hired a lawyer, convinced we had the upper hand - but that was not the case. Examine your lease carefully, and find out if the new buyer is using the entire house.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 7:11 PM
Unless there is an added clause providing for early termination on sale, then the term of the lease is valid and applies to whoever purchases the building. Any owner who is contemplating selling and delivering the house vacant would negotiate such with the tenant in advance. If that didn't happen, then you have the right to be there through the end of your lease. If you are willing to move, fine, look around, but you might find that the seller will give you more than you think if the deal depends on the house being delivered vacant - the amount would have no relationship to your rent, or to your new rent, but rather to the deal itself, and how much the buyer might demand to accept the house with you in it. See a lawyer would be my advice here.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 7:33 PM
4:11, yes I did sign it, and Mrs. Limestone was right, it was a standard lease form. Like I said, OP's lease might not have a clause in there, but I'm guessing that they just signed it this summer, and their landlord probably had an idea that they were going to sell, and probably put it in the lease. I know, a lot of assumptions, but there you go. If they don't have a clause, I think that just gives the tenant more leverage to ask for more money (as your tenancy impacts the value of the house). In that case, I'd bring out my bargaining tools and get a nice settlement, rather than fight to stay. But thats just me.
Posted by: rjlovie at December 12, 2007 7:42 PM
If you're asking how much to request, you could ask the landlord to cover the fee for a rental broker so you don't have to hunt yourself.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:26 PM
I second the post that you include a broker's fee in your negotiations. You will get the best value for your money on a monthly basis going that route in this tight market.
Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:47 AM
Condo's in Crown Heights have paid tenants over $160K to move this year, so don't be too shy. You have great leverage here with both your landlord and the buyer, who can collaborate to sweeten a deal that clearly works for them so that it works better for you. In the Netherlands you get 6 months rent to move with - these are all choices that we make and here we're pretty tough on tenants when they're inconvenient. Good luck and hope you find a new home that you love.
Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 7:46 AM
I guessing the condo's paying $160K are to get rent controlled tenants out.
I wouildnt expect that kind of cash to get out of a lease 6 months early, especially if there is a sale clause as discussed above.
Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:18 AM
If the buyer is combining apartments, it will take them some time to draw up plans and get permits, longer if in a Landmark District. This will be longer than your lease goes. When we did this, it took almost a year. The buyer may not want the potential headaches of evicting you if you decide to stay past your lease, assuming that you will turn into a pain in the a**. You have some leverage (as long as the buyer doesn't discover you are a nice guy and will honor your lease). 2 months rent + brokers fee sound about right.
Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:12 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.