Forum
« Exterior sheet metal sills Wood Stripping-what is included? »
August 11, 2009
Taking Over Rent-Stab Unit
I am a landlord with a 6 unit building where half the units are rent stabilized. I plan to take over one of the rent stabilized units to live in for myself and fix it up for rental at market price. Is there a way to not renew the current tenants lease and to also get rid of the rent stabilization for that unit? My plan is move to different rent stabilized units in the building one at a time every few years and fix them up. Will this plan get rid of the rent stabilization?
Comments
to my knowledge, you may take over one apartment...period... the rest will remain stabilized ...be prepared for endless litigation by your stabilized tenants, with the prospect of triple damages against you if you try to game the system...consult a lawyer with knowledge about stabilization before wading into this morass
Posted by: eman1234 at August 10, 2009 6:37 PM
not true, eman, you can take over the whole building if you need it, one apt at a time. No one can tell you how much space you need. Nevertheless, eman is right that you will need a good lawyer, plenty of money, and nerves of steel, as you are fucking with people's homes. Good luck.
Posted by: denton at August 10, 2009 6:51 PM
go to housingnyc.com and read the law
you must occupy the apartment for four years before you can rent it out
also, if the tenant is over 62, I don't think you can regain possession
but it doesn't hurt to follow the law and mail the tenant you have in mind a letter informing them you won't be renewing the lease because you plan to occupy the apartment yourself.
talk to a lawyer to make sure you send the proper notice at the right time and follow all laws. with the new landlord harassment legislation, you don't want to get accused of harassment. . .
Posted by: IronBalls at August 10, 2009 6:53 PM
"fucking with peoples homes"
Denton, are you nuts??? The building belongs to the OWNER, not the renter.
If anything, the tenants are "fucking with the owner," because they won't move voluntarily, since their regulated rents are so damn cheap.
Posted by: IronBalls at August 10, 2009 6:56 PM
"Aint nobody's business..." Diana. It's all yours!
One apt at time is great plan. Good luck and Godspeed!
Posted by: jack slade at August 10, 2009 8:46 PM
"Denton, are you nuts??? The building belongs to the OWNER, not the renter."
IB, you know things are a little backwards in NYC :-)
And you know RS tenants are not gonna just get up and move when they get a letter. It's gonna be a battle for sure.
Posted by: denton at August 11, 2009 6:32 AM
I totally sympathize with you but the other posters are right - you need a KNOWLEDGEABLE lawyer. The rules are very strict, a better word is oppressive. Anything not done by the book will kill your case. Your first step is getting a legal consultation.
You have to understand that the owners of RS apts don't really have property rights.
Posted by: starfish1948 at August 11, 2009 7:48 AM
This plan will justifiably land you in court. You are, I believe, allowed to take over one unit for personal use. Trading that unit for another for the sole purpose of getting rid of the tenants is of course illegal.
How this constitutes the tenants #$#%ing with the owner is a little lost on me. I'm a landlord. But every time I cash their check I'm acknowledging that my tenants have rights. I'd suggest the same tact.
Posted by: Johnny at August 11, 2009 9:24 AM
quote:
Denton, are you nuts??? The building belongs to the OWNER, not the renter.
wrong! the owner owns a building with stabalized tenants, who have rights to their dwelling as well. just because you bought a building doesn't take away tenants rights.
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at August 11, 2009 9:56 AM
and what is with all this "get a lawyer" talk? if you REALLY want someone out of an apartment, there are so many ways to get them out. think outside the box and definitely go old school on their asses. when did nyc turn so pansy?
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at August 11, 2009 9:58 AM
rob, thanks for cracking me up.
A part of me agrees with the sentiment "this is the owner's property! he/she should be able to do with it what he/she pleases!" But its not like the rent stabilized tenants SUDDENLY APPEARED at the poor owner's door and demanded cheap rent. They were there, I suspect, before the owner ever bought the place, and that's why it was probably a really cheap buy! Well, newsflash: That discounted price was for a reason. Tenant rights are in fact respected and protected by nyc law, and anyone who thinks they can outsmart the system by buying something cheap and then breaking the law to jack up the value is, well, gonna have to face the consequences. Good luck? I don't think so. Try good thinking.
Posted by: iz at August 11, 2009 10:07 AM
I find your question to be incredible. Did you move to NYC yesterday? If not,surely you must know that rent-stabilized law is slanted towards the tenant, and it is no small matter to do what you propose. To go on the internet and ask for advice as if this were akin to asking for points on paint selection indicates to me that you are either a) naive; b) way in over your head or c) disingenuous.
You need to do your homework, even before you consult with a lawyer. NYU and other organizations have whole courses on managing rent-stabilized buildings. What you are proposing above is not to be taken lightly, which was Denton's point.
Posted by: benson at August 11, 2009 10:13 AM
Good luck with that. You might be able to get one tenant out but not all. If the tenant(s) is beyond 62 years old, you are basically screwed. I had a similar situation a while ago when I was looking into buying a place with a rent stabilized tenant who was over 62.
I consulted a real estate lawyer who specialized in just that (and was one of the best known ones out there). He said it would be cheaper for me to buy the same property at market price (this was deeply discounted because of the said tenant). He said it'll cost me thousands and a couple of years in and out of court(s) to get the tenant out legally and even he can't guarantee that I would win since the court will generally be on the tenant's side no matter what. I listened and moved on without putting in a bid.
Posted by: Kensingtonian at August 11, 2009 10:23 AM
"Tenant rights are in fact respected and protected by nyc law, and anyone who thinks they can outsmart the system by buying something cheap and then breaking the law to jack up the value is, well, gonna have to face the consequences."
Actually, this isn't entirely true. When tenants are poor and lack English, unscrupulous landlords have, over and over again, forced them out in order to renovate and greatly increase rents, in defiance of the laws that do protect tenants. The fact that this activity is so common place in NYC is WHY the anti-harassment law was passed in the first place.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-06-19/news/the-second-battle-of-bushwick/
Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 11, 2009 10:32 AM
If you only took possession of one apartment, you would be in a good position and the law would be on your side. But if you plan on moving into a new one every few years, you are giving your tenants plenty of evidence that your "Personal Use" ploy is a scam. Expect that to come up in court when/if you get to a second apartment.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at August 11, 2009 10:33 AM
My understanding (from working at Legal Aid, albeit as a paralegal) is that you can take over a rent-stabilized apartment for personal use (by yourself or a family member) only. You've clearly stated that you would take the three apartments not for personal use (i.e., to actually live in them), but to renovate them and then rent them out at market rates. One tenant may fall for your "personal use" pretext, but other tenants won't and will likely draw you into litigation.
You should sit down with a reputable landlord's attorney and get a sense of what this type of litigation (with the attendant depositions and discovery) would cost you. As a litigator who bills out at $350/hour (which actually isn't that much in this city), I always remind people who think that litigation is no big deal, that it's not really in attorneys interests to keep costs down. You should also read the tenants' leases to see if attorneys fees are awarded to the prevailing party in any litigation under the leases. If they are, and the tenant gets Legal Aid or Legal Services, or any other self-respecting attorney to represent him/her, you'll be on the hook for the tenants' attorneys fees in addition to your own.
Posted by: talknerdytome at August 11, 2009 11:00 AM
What Carol Gardens and others said. I'm sure this shady tactic has been tried ad infinitum, by lots of landlords, and has gone down in flames in court, as it should.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 11, 2009 11:01 AM
"Did you move to NYC yesterday?"
Uh, clearly. The OP is 26 years old and lives in Williamsburg. Do you think she actually went to work and earned any of the money needed to buy a 6-unit apartment building?
Posted by: talknerdytome at August 11, 2009 11:11 AM
"How this constitutes the tenants #$#%ing with the owner is a little lost on me. I'm a landlord. But every time I cash their check I'm acknowledging that my tenants have rights. I'd suggest the same tact.
Posted by: Johnny at August 11, 2009 9:24 AM"
Have to agree- and a thank you to Johnny for acknowledging that tenants in RS apartments are not out to rip off anyone.
Take heed,thenamesdiana- you sound like a slumlord in the making.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 11, 2009 11:19 AM
Disgusting! You seem to forget these 'tenants' are people just like you.
Posted by: AJoy at August 11, 2009 11:20 AM
I really hate it when folks beat up on a forum poster seeking advice, but this is one instance where I feel it's well deserved. If you were looking only to take one apt. for personal use and you actually intended to live there for the duration, I'd say ignore all these naysayers. But, you have made it clear that you are simply using this as a loophole to de-stabilize your building. Yes, tenants in NYC are given a lot of rights and some feel it is at the expense of the landlord. But what you are proposing is why so many feel like landlords are scum. You will be found out. You will be sued. You will lose. Time and money. If you have plenty of both to spare, proceed my friend. Otherwise, grow a heart and some sense and nip this ridiculous idea in the bud. And, I'm gonna go with Benson's option 'c' that you are being disingenuous with your post. Did you just want to see what kind of responses you'd get to a dumb @ss question?
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at August 11, 2009 11:30 AM
Eureka! I agree w/ Benson!
Posted by: Arkady at August 11, 2009 11:36 AM
Arkady- just don't forget, he's MY e-hubby! :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at August 11, 2009 11:44 AM
Wow, OP. You'll get just what you deserve. Which ain't jack sh*t if you bought a RS building without a clue.
Posted by: MAT at August 11, 2009 1:05 PM
I'm pretty sure that the fact that there'd still be six units in the building means you couldn't "destabilize" them in the first place. What you could do is renovate them and raise the rent based on the renovations, which works out to a certain percentage.
That being said, I echo the general sentiment here -- get a conscience, or at least a calculator that can understand how to make a profitable situation WITHOUT screwing over a bunch of people.
Posted by: Heather at August 11, 2009 1:22 PM
The one apt at a time plan is not a good plan. if you are going to do it, do it at once.
Claim 1/2 of the building as your living space and go through the litigation all at once.
It will be difficult (or nigh impossible if any tenant is over 62) so good luck.
Posted by: slick at August 11, 2009 1:51 PM
Kensingtonian,
Can i get the contact for you real estate lawyer? that would be much appreciated.
-diana
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 2:29 PM
I'm curious whether you were fed this line of an idea by a shark-like broker who spotted a slow, fat fish. He certainly deserves his 6%. Did he sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, as well? Btw, you do know your IP address can be traced back to you by tenants with a subpoena, right? Karma is a bitch, Ebeneezer.
Posted by: musicmope at August 11, 2009 2:45 PM
Is there any way I can take over lets say two units/one floor of the building for personal use, or can it only be one unit?
-thenamesdiana
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 2:48 PM
I just posted a question on this forum, why are some people so nasty. I was just asking about an idea I had and if it was legal. I obviously posted on this forum because I was curious and wanted some advice. But nevertheless, thank you all posters for answering my post :) Now I will seek legal advice.
For all you haters. Yes, I am 26 and live in Williamsburg. I actually work and can afford this building because I'm buying with a partner 50/50 . Its better than two poorly constructed condos. BTW I grew up in NYC since I was 5, and have no experience with owning a property, thats why I posted in the first place. Im sorry if you hate me for being able to buy something at my age but I will be a great landlord, esp since I'm going to be living in the building. I don't shit where I eat:)
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 3:02 PM
diana, I disagree with the posters that say you can only take over one apt. You can take the space you need for a home. There's a famous case on the LES running now about a guy who's trying to take over a huge building and claim he needs it for his family. But the fact that it was in the NYT should be a cautionary flag. I agree with the poster who says do it all at once. But like everyone says you need a real lawyer. And you need to have the stomach and the capital for a long and nasty fight. It will take you twice as long and cost twice as much as you expect. You WILL be shitting where you are eating, because you'll have to see the same people you are trying to evict every day, and they won't be smiling at you. In fact they may be planning a nice counter-offensive.
Posted by: denton at August 11, 2009 3:33 PM
You're going to be a great landlord of who?...the people you displace/evict?
Very clearly, you do shit where you eat, and apparently indiscriminate about who/what you eat, too.
Posted by: vinca at August 11, 2009 3:34 PM
Sorry Diana, never ended up using him and this was over 4 years ago so I don't have his contact info anymore. I can't even remember where in midtown his office is located.
Posted by: Kensingtonian at August 11, 2009 3:37 PM
Diana, I had a very similar offer to yours. I looked into a bunch of these type of properties during peak times (in 2004-2006) and I know of some people who invested in these type of buildings. The ones that won and evicted rent stabilized tenants, had a lot of capital, time and a stomach to fight just as denton said. This were usually people backed by a venture capital and invested in a 50+ apartment building(s) as opposed to a 6 apartment building.
The lawyer that I consulted said that before you can take the rent stabilized apartment and claim it as your primary residence, you have to give valid excuse why you don't want to take the other apartment that you are renting at a market rate and no, just saying that it's rent stabilized and is paying less is NOT a good excuse.
I mean, take what I say with a grain of salt and find a reputable landlord attorney who specializes in this to consult. My feeling is that it wont go anywhere.
Posted by: Kensingtonian at August 11, 2009 3:47 PM
It can be done but hurry. This landlord won and as a result they may change the law. It took several years and hundreds of thousand of dolars. http://www.thevillager.com/villager_207/tenantsareunitedunder.html Google this for an education. It will be cheaper to offer buy outs if the tenants are willing. You could find this lawyer from court papers
Posted by: edifice rex at August 11, 2009 5:06 PM
edifice, gave a good point. You can attempt to buy the person(s) out. I entertained that idea when I was looking at the property and the tenant rejected an offer from me so I knew the only way was the lawsuit path.
Again, do you have several years and thousands of dollars to contribute?
Posted by: Kensingtonian at August 11, 2009 5:11 PM
So, OP, you're not a landlord? Just hope to be? Get a clue. You're not the first to think of this illegal scheme.
Posted by: mopar at August 11, 2009 5:14 PM
Im not the landlord but I hope to be, I posted as a scenario of me as a landlord, sorry for the confusion. I was just looking at this property but I think I may buy it and just keep the cheaper apts the way it is, in a few years with the regular increases, they will reach market price anyway. I get a good portion of my mortgage and less headaches. Thank you all!
-diana
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 5:40 PM
dear mopar..
I was trying to get a clue, thats why I posted in the first place. And I posted to find out if this was illegal because I was sure not to be the first to come up with the scheme.
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 5:43 PM
My final suggestion- since what you posted was clearly an illegal procedure. Not taking over a space to sell, but using it as a means of illegally evicting people who have committed no crime other than to be paying tenants who aren't paying enough for greedy you. You want the discounts but not the responsibility. Read up on your subject before you so stupidly post it on a public forum.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 11, 2009 5:48 PM
Mopar-
I posted to get a clue. I was sure I wasn't the first one to come up with this scheme and thats why I posted to see if it was illegal or has been done illegally.
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 5:52 PM
bxgrl
Well then dont reply to my stupid posting.
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 5:55 PM
Its a public posting- Brownstoner is the last post you should be posting if you only want replies that you like. And you just can't stop:"I was sure I wasn't the first one to come up with this SCHEME " Now do you get it?
Posted by: bxgrl at August 11, 2009 6:07 PM
i dont. cant you explain it to me again?
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 6:21 PM
bxgrl
i dont, cant you explain it to me again please?
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 6:22 PM
lol good point out on his wording bxgirl. and im sorry but if we evicted every rent stabalized and rent controlled tenant in this city it would be mad boring. rent controlled tenants are the last abstion of kooks in nyc and rent stabalized tenants might be the last bastion of the true working class we have.
i dont want to live in a city that is the mecca for everything yuppie that thw world spits up on it. u know what i mean?
*rob*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at August 11, 2009 6:25 PM
I used the word scheme because thats what mopar called it:
"So, OP, you're not a landlord? Just hope to be? Get a clue. You're not the first to think of this illegal scheme."
Posted by: mopar at August 11, 2009 5:14 PM
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 6:32 PM
Too bad pitbull. I think its already too late in williamsburg and parkslope where you are from.
Posted by: thenamesdiana at August 11, 2009 6:37 PM
wow you are 26 and are think that it is a good plan to scam the poor out of rent stabilized apartments..your mom and dad really instilled good values in you.. are you a friend of paris hilton?
Posted by: eman1234 at August 11, 2009 10:37 PM
Everyone should have to work and pay their own way.
Rent Stabilization is a form of welfare that has nothing to do with income.
Private landlords suffer at the expense of apartment hoarders who often don't pay enough rent to even cover basic expenses.
Every time a rent stabilized or rent controlled apartment is destabilized, a working, productive member of society has a better chance to find decent housing.
Diana, don't let the freeloaders on this site get to you.
There's nothing wrong with trying to get rid of your rent regulated tenants, as long as you follow the law.
Posted by: IronBalls at August 11, 2009 11:50 PM
"I am a landlord with a 6 unit building where half the units are rent stabilized"
Diana? you had me thinking you were already engaged in this struggle that might last 30 plus years.
Still good luck! A 26 yr old that's ready to leap off the sidelines and become a homeowner is rare thing. Explore every option and post questions!
RE: this thread of tears
I for one think every RS tenant in the state should be investigate immediately. The tenants that are truly 65+ or disabled should be left alone and, the parasites that occupy or pass apartments around like heirlooms should be kicked to the curb.
Posted by: jack slade at August 12, 2009 12:16 AM
When I got my rent stabilized apartment (which I no longer live in), I had no idea it was rent stabilized. I simply answered an ad and rented the place at the rent posted. So anyone who thinks people somehow finagle RS apartments by scamming landlords need a reality check. Paying my rent every month, paying my taxes, being a law abiding citizen makes me a lot less of a parasite than someone who takes advantage of every little tax break or tries to figure out how to scam the system by breaking the law.
There was no handout, and RS is not welfare- as much as some people like to paint ti as such. My apartment was maybe 200$ below market when I moved out and had been painted once in 12 years. The bathroom was falling apart and not repaired until I finally threatened to call Con Ed to look at the bare wires hanging out of the lights. So how about a parasitic landlord who is happy to let apartments become unsafe- in violation of the lease's warrant of habitability? And the excuse- RS? Oh puhleeze.
(uh- and no, diana- I can't explain it to you again. If you don't get it after 50 posts, you never will. Too bad.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 12, 2009 12:53 AM
Rent control came to NY as a result of housing shortages at the end of WW2. I at one time foolishly thought the Supreme Court would declare it illegal as a taking without compensation but a similar case in San Francisco was oked by the Supremes...Also I have come to the conclusion that in general some landlords are as bad as most tenants and would raise rents with limited justification.
Sounds like a lot of people here think they know how this works. They don't. Its a long costly affair to get any tenant out- even when they don't pay. What some people suggest is close to illegal and harassment and your tenants can wind up owning the house if you do what they suggest and the Housing court can now fine landlords for this as well...and make you pay it over to the tenant....
Unless you have a strong stomach and a trust fund pass this up. Leave it to the professional bastards there are more than enough of them....some even post here.
Posted by: smeyer418 at August 12, 2009 1:36 AM
Well then there you go Bravo good job.
You moved out.
You're just going to have to accept that this is MY take on rent stabilization. Just like I'm mature enough to understand that what you wrote was your personal experience with 1 landlord.
The parasite know who they are. If you're not one put a sock in it.
Posted by: jack slade at August 12, 2009 1:43 AM
BxGrl,
If you didn't like the RS apartment, you could have left anytime.
The proof is in the pudding -- you didn't. You stayed twelve years!
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh, my apartment was only painted once! You can't possibly be serious?
You're landlord lost thousands as the market rose, and he couldn't increase your rent, yet you have the nerve to complain or somehow justify your lucky deal. . . please!
Posted by: IronBalls at August 12, 2009 7:16 AM
And, Bxgrl, I don't mean to imply that I'm any better of a person than you are. If given the opportunity, most people leach off others.
The rent laws are the problem, not ordinary people, like yourself, who were lucky enough to have been able to take advantage of them.
But crying about how you put up with bad conditions is just malarky. Any day, any hour, any minute. . . you could have moved out and you landlord would have thanked you for it!
Posted by: IronBalls at August 12, 2009 7:27 AM
iron balls- no, I kept painting and fixing up my place until it got to the point that even I couldn't cope with it. That's a cheezy landlord excuse- I can't maintain my building because my tenants are RS/RC. for bitching and moaning about RS- well, waaaahhhh to you too. You know when you buy a building at a discounted price for RS tenants that's the deal. If you can't afford the building, you shouldn't have bought it.
As I pointed out, I had no idea the apartment i was renting was rent-stabilized. No one said so when I got it. So you think I should move out of an apartment because I found out it was rent stabilized and I want to spare the poor poor landlord? Right. If the landlord really wanted me out (and they didn't because I was a great tenant) they could have very easily offered me money to move. trust me- I would have thanked them for it.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 12, 2009 3:21 PM
"Im sorry if you hate me for being able to buy something at my age but I will be a great landlord...'
No, people here that hate you couldn't give a sh*t about your financials. They hate you because you are a clueless dooooshbag. And obviously an immature idiot if you say something like "Im sorry if you hate me for being able to buy something at my age..."
Posted by: MAT at August 12, 2009 5:43 PM
"You know when you buy a building at a discounted price for RS tenants that's the deal".
The same statement applies to those who really want to live in so called hip neighborhoods and cant afford a regular apt.
"If the landlord really wanted me out (and they didn't because I was a great tenant) they could have very easily offered me money to move."
Not one red cent after 12 years of scheming, so now you bad mouth them on brownstoner.
Parasitic 2 faced hypocrite. No wonder you were the first to raise your hand and belly ache when I called your kind out.
Posted by: jack slade at August 12, 2009 11:43 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.