Forum
« Moving the electrical outlet and cable input to mount tv to the wall Wood Pest Prevention »
June 2, 2008
Rooftop access revoked!
So I'm wondering if anyone out there has had a similar situation/knows of what recourse should be taken:
My roommate and I have currently lived in our newly-rennovated 2 bedroom in Fort Greene for one month.
We were told numerous times by the broker that the apartment came with rooftop access (on the day of the open house, he was directing people upstairs to the roof!) and even verbally admitted by telephone that he did, indeed, advertise that it came with rooftop access.
Two weeks ago, we went upstairs to find the door to the roof locked.
The landlord states that the insurance premiums on the roof are too high and it's dangerous.
The landlord's addendum to the standard lease (you know, the one written in 1958 that practically everyone uses) states that we would be held responsible for any damage to the roof...
doesn't this presuppose access to the roof?
Shouldn't the landlord either pay the higher premium, reduce our rent, or give us a key?
Or is the broker liable and we should go to small claims court for his broker's fee.
Help, please!
Comments
Rental agents say a lot of crap to close, which is one reason why I avoid agencies entirely. If I learned nothing else as a survivor of the lower Manhattan loft wars I learned that if it's not in the lease it's not in the deal.
If you can find some of those other prospective tenants to back your story you might have a shot at suing the agent.
Posted by: Steve at June 2, 2008 5:48 PM
Why don't you just go up the fire escape like everyone else has to do?
Posted by: guest at June 2, 2008 6:18 PM
Sue the agent. See if you can find a copy of the ad. If it's just verbal, you're out of luck.
Posted by: guest at June 2, 2008 7:11 PM
You are correct if it is in the lease. If it is not spelled out in the lease you are out of luck, but you have learned a lesson.
Posted by: guest at June 2, 2008 7:31 PM
Maybe you should just offer to buy the building and then you can do whatever you want, including lower your tenants' rent for not allowing them onto your roof. But back to the broker question - while the landlord is well within his/her rights, you might have a case against the broker. But you aren't entitled to a decrease in rent based on a lack of access to a roof if there was no guaranteed access spelled out in the lease. Even if there was, any clause defining terms under which it could be terminated unilaterally by the landlord would stand.
Posted by: guest at June 2, 2008 7:36 PM
Yes I know of numerous "similar situations" where a verbal promise was not spelled out in the lease.
Guess what happens when a verbal promise is not spelled out in the lease?
Posted by: guest at June 2, 2008 8:27 PM
If you sue you will pay a lawyer to get your own money back.
Posted by: Ysabelle at June 2, 2008 8:55 PM
An oral agreement expires in one year..
Posted by: Ysabelle at June 2, 2008 8:57 PM
Ysabelle - That is not accurate. You are referring to the Statute of Frauds which states that an oral contract must be reasonablly able to be completed within 1 year. If it is for a lease, if the lease is for 1 year then it is valid. There is no "Expiration."
Regardless, as with any oral agreement, if you cannot present evidence as to the existence of the oral agreement and the other party denies it, you have no case.
If the renter can demonstrate the oral agreement did exist, they can sue for specific performance or damages (i.e. Rent Reduction) However as you imply in your earlier post, is it worth the effort and money to sue?
Posted by: newsouthsloper at June 2, 2008 9:24 PM
if that's the fire egress for you then the door/hatch to the roof cannot be locked. If it isn't then just use the fire escape.
Posted by: guest at June 2, 2008 10:41 PM
but the city does not recognize such thing as a fire egress through a roof hatch, so a building owner is not constrained by law in locking it.
Posted by: Smokychimp at June 3, 2008 5:31 PM
A roof door can be an approved means of egress but it has to meet a laundry list of other restrictions to be considered as such, like a fireproof, enclosed stairwell, a 36" wide fire-approved exit door, a means to safely exit the roof, etc.
Posted by: Steve at June 3, 2008 11:45 PM
your a fucking renter you dont got shit for rights. Most likely your sme yuppie hipster trying to gentrify the Brooklyn that i was born and raised in. So personally i dont give a shit.
Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 9:52 AM
I agree with 7:36. You should buy the building, lower the rent to all the tenants and give everyone roof access!
Posted by: guest at June 6, 2008 12:21 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.