Friday Links
Subway Watchdog Releases Annual ‘Schmutz’ Report [NY1] Tenant-Landlord Feud Over Mold in Bensonhurst [NY Daily News] ENY Residents Say Closed Popeyes Reeks [NY Daily News] Brooklyn Friends Leases at Be@Schermerhorn [Eagle] Con Ed Hike Makes Apple ‘Power’ Mad [NY Post]
Subway Watchdog Releases Annual ‘Schmutz’ Report [NY1]
Tenant-Landlord Feud Over Mold in Bensonhurst [NY Daily News]
ENY Residents Say Closed Popeyes Reeks [NY Daily News]
Brooklyn Friends Leases at Be@Schermerhorn [Eagle]
Con Ed Hike Makes Apple ‘Power’ Mad [NY Post]
Thanks, Benson. Good to know these things in general. I don’t know what to think of this story. You are right; not enough information to have a responsible opinion.
STARGAZER, you’re still a freak of some undetermined sort.
Bxgrl;
I am not advocating for the landlord nor the tenant, I am saying that there are two sides to every story, and this article only provides only one (and its due diligence is poor).
As to your points above:
-there is no doubt that the landlord would be delighted if they vacated the apartment so that he could charge a higher rent. Their wishes, however, don’t makee it so. The fact of the matter is that senior citizens in rent-controlled apartments are THE most protected class in housing court. It is extremely difficult to evict senior citizens, especially those in regulated apartments. The fact that the landlords would even attempt to do so, knowing these odds, makes me think that they have some facts on their side. Or they just may be greedy bastards.
-as to why the Pearlsteins might be holding out for a payout, let me lay out a scenario that goes on all the time in that neighborhood, from whence I came: their kids live in a suburb like Manalapan or Marlboro (where alot of people from Bensonhurst went to) and are getting tired of schlepping across two bridges to look after mom and dad. They are pressuring mom and dad to move closer to them, as they approach a higher age, and a payout would help finance such a move. Or, the Pearlsteins may indeed just want to hold on to their apartment and live in a nice comfortable environment.
There are a number of possible scenarios. Greed can run both ways. There is not enough information in the article to say.
The courts will decide (or they will reach a settlement before it goes to court)..
And before you sympathize too much with the landlord, read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/21/nyregion/new-york-is-seeking-to-end-conversions-by-4-landlords.html
Or he could be doing it just to get a rent controlled tenant out. That’s usually the motivation when a landlord tries to evict a tenant under rent control.
The guy has been in that apartment 70 years and he is 77, does not want to leave and let’s face it- where else is he going to get a rent deal like that? So the idea that at his age he wants a buy-out so he can move is patently ridiculous. At his age its highly doubtful he can be evicted and despite the landlord’s claim the Pearlsteins kept calling and waking him in the night, we all know he must have had an answering machine and I highly doubt he picked up his phone at 3 am. They offered him 700$ to move? Even more ridiculous.
Nomi;
Here is what I am saying:
-after a tenant calls in a Class “B” violation, the landlord has 60 days to have the problem corrected, and to send a notarized statement back to the HPD certifying that he has remediated the problem. If he or she does not do this, the fine starts to kick in.
-after the landlord sends in the certification, HPD sends out their own inspector to verify that the work was indeed done.
-one can see the status at any time on the HPD’s web-site. If you go to their web-site, you can put in the address of any building in the city, and it will show you the history of any violation and its remediation status.
The Daily News could have gone to the web-site and checked if there was some validity to the tenant’s claim (that the landlord had not remediated the mold). The fact that they did not makes me suspicious.
The other thing that makes me feel that there is more to this story is the fact that the landlord is suing to evict them. Again, I will make a statement based upon first-hand experience: the LAST thing any savvy lanlord will usually do in a situation where a violation had been reported is to try to evict a tenant. The housing courts do not look kindly on a landlord who sues a tenant because they report a violation. It is viewed (rightfully) as harassment, or retribution if you will, for a tenant exerting their legal rights. The fact that this landlord is willing to do so after a serious violation like mold makes me think there is something to their story.
The courts will decide.
I hear what you are saying, Benson. It sounds like the “fishy” part is why didn’t The Daily News confirm that the tenant had called HPD, or the mold remover that he said he paid for himself.
I know which way The News leans, of course, and what you are saying is possible.
It’s also possible that it’s just sloppy journalism, just like you’d find in the right leaning Post. Neither have exactly high standards….
I don’t know. It seems like he’d be going some, the tenant, to invent the landlord’s inadequate response (would the HPD send their own inspectors to make sure the owner had done the job properly?), and invent the story about taking care of the problem on his own dime all in hopes of a bigger buyout? How big? Where would they go?
Not saying it’s not possible; as you say, “one cannot draw conclusions, based on the information presented.”
(It’s also possible that both things are true. That is, that the landlord did NOT properly get rid of the mold, AND this tenant is “disruptive.”)
Stargazer- you really shouldn’t attempt to be witty unless you have the intellectual capacity to follow through. Sadly,while you have an overabundance of immaturity, bigotry, and ignorance, these characteristics should never be mistaken for a functioning IQ.
he is probably a greedy jew that wants a bigger buyout, which he doesn’t deserve.
really sticks tongue out
There is something very fishy about that mold story.
Mold in an apartment is a code violation. I can tell you from first-hand experience (I manage a 3-family home for someone) that when the HPD is called on such a violation, they respond quickly. It is a Class “B” violation, which means that the landlord is given a 60-day deadline by which to rectify the problem, or face a $100 fine that increases by $10 for every day past the deadline.
According to the story, the tenant did call the HPD. I assume that this process took its course. It would have been easy for the Daily News to go to the HPD’s website, and check the public records if this violation was corrected.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the tenant is trying to use bad press as a weapon to gain a bigger buy-out figure from the landlord. Of course, the Daily News, in its silly eagerness to position itself as the tribune of the “woiking man”, runs with the piece.
One cannot draw conclusions, based on the information presented. That’s why we have housing courts. I know it’s easy to paint the landlord as a bastard and this poor elderly tenant is just a victim but again, it may not be the case.