WHICH EX-CON WILL YOU HAVE TO RENT TO?

WHICH EX-CON WILL YOU HAVE TO RENT TO?

You have an apartment for rent. Maybe it’s the second floor of the four family house you live in. Will you be forced to ignore the criminal records of your prospective tenant pool? Maybe.

On April 4, 2016, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a warning to private landlords: a blanket policy or practice that rejects prospective tenants because of criminal records may be violating laws designed to prevent discrimination against certain protected classes as defined by the Fair Housing Act. Criminals, of course, are not a protected class but wholesale refusal to rent to them might still be prohibited. If the policy or practice of not renting to anyone with a criminal record has a disparate effect on any class protected under the Fair Housing Act, that policy or practice might be found to be a violation of the Act. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WHICH EX-CON WILL YOU HAVE TO RENT TO?

LANDLORD TENANT BUY-OUTS MAY BE TOO HOT TO HANDLE

Last month, one of my clients called to discuss whether he could negotiate with a tenant who approached him seeking a buy-out to move out of a rent stabilized apartment. He had read about a new law that considers some buy out offers to tenants to be harassment. So what if a tenant contacts you with an offer that you refuse. Can you make a counter offer? What if you make an offer and the tenant refuses? Can you make a counter offer? New fines for harassment can range from $1,000 – $10,000. Clearly, it pays to know the law before you engage. The law, which took effect in December, 2015, is an amendment to NYC Administrative Code 27-2004 and has three separate components that restrict where, when and how a buy-out offer can be made. Those components are listed in numerical order below but must be viewed as a whole. As you will see, initial buy-out offers as well as repeated offers and maybe even counter-offers may now be a basis for a harassment complaint by your tenant.

First, Intro. 682-A, prohibits a landlord from engaging in the following behavior in the course of offering a buy-out:

(1) threatening, intimidating or using obscene language;

(2) initiating communication with such frequency, at such unusual hours or in such a manner as can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass such person;

(3) initiating communication at the place of employment of such person without the prior written consent of such person; or

(4) knowingly falsifying or misrepresenting any information provided to such person;

Clearly, (1) has never been an accepted form of negotiation and landlords should continue to refrain. (2) is not so clear. What can “reasonably be expected” to be of such frequency or during such hours as to be abuse or harassment? If a landlord calls once in the morning and gets no answer and calls back after dinner, say during Jeopardy, is that unreasonable. If the tenant thinks it is, and files a harassment complaint, the landlord may find himself having to prove that the calls were not unreasonable. What is “reasonable” in this context is impossible to define until a court decides for or against a party based on the new law. Reasonable expectations may vary from person to person and, frankly, I would not hazard a guess as to what an unreasonable hour is or how many communications are too many. (3) & (4) are easy. Don’t contact your tenant at work and don’t make things up. Period.

Next Intro 757-A prohibits a landlord from:

contacting any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit, or any relative of such person, to offer money or other valuable consideration to induce such person to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, for 180 days after the owner has been notified, in writing, that such person does not wish to receive any such offers, except that the owner may contact such person regarding such an offer if given express permission by a court of competent jurisdiction or if notified in writing by such person of an interest in receiving such an offer;

So, the law prohibits a landlord from making any offer within 180 days of being notified in writing that the tenant does not want to be contacted on that subject. So, what if you are communicating with your tenant by e-mail or text, is that in writing? And what if you make an offer and they answer “What??? Don’t even bother”. Is that a notification in writing that they don’t want another offer. And if it isn’t one now, could it be considered one if negotiations get contentious? There are a number of scenarios that could be interpreted for and against. What if the tenant casually bumps into the super who, unprompted by the landlord, says, “ I bet you could get $50,000 to move out of that apartment.” Is that an offer? I usually avoid giving broad legal advice and this is one I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.
Finally, Intro. 700-A, makes it unlawful for an owner to make a buyout offer without informing tenants, in writing, of their right to stay in their apartment, to seek an attorney’s advice, and to decline any future contact on a buyout offer for 180 days. A Miranda warning for landlord tenant law, if you will. Again, a landlord is prohibited from:

contacting any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit to offer money or other valuable consideration to induce such person to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, unless such owner discloses to such person in writing (i) at the time of the initial contact, and (ii) in the event that contacts continue more than 180 days after the prior written disclosure, at the time of the first contact occurring more than 180 days after the prior written disclosure:
(1) the purpose of such contact,
(2) that such person may reject any such offer and may continue to occupy such dwelling unit,
(3) that such person may seek the guidance of an attorney regarding any such offer and may, for information on accessing legal services, refer to The ABCs of Housing guide on the department’s website,
(4) that such contact is made by or on behalf of such owner, and
(5) that such person may, in writing, refuse any such contact and such refusal would bar such contact for 180 days, except that the owner may contact such person regarding such an offer if given express permission by a court of competent jurisdiction or if notified in writing by such person of an interest in receiving such an offer;

If you’re thinking that it has just become way too risky to engage in buy-out negotiations, you may be right. Landlords may not be the only ones left swinging here, though. There are many tenants who live in “hot” neighborhoods who may see a potential buy-out as a great opportunity. Since landlords can’t tell the difference between who will and who will not be interested or offended, those opportunities may go unrealized.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on LANDLORD TENANT BUY-OUTS MAY BE TOO HOT TO HANDLE

ONE AND TWO FAMILY RENTALS MUST BE REGISTERED WITH HPD

Landlords of a one or two family houses are now required to register the building with the Department of Housing Preservation Development (HPD) unless the owner or the owner’s family resides in one of the units. In the past, only landlords of buildings containing three or more dwelling units (multiple dwellings) were required to register, so many owners of smaller properties may not be complying because they are unaware of the regulation. There are penalties for failure to register including fines in the hundreds of dollars. There may be a bigger penalty, though, if you wind up in housing court.

If your property is required to be registered and is not, you will not be able to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent or get a money judgment for back rent in a holdover proceeding.  Many landlords are not concerned about collecting back rent in a holdover proceeding. The focus is on getting the apartment back as soon as possible. These cases are often settled as a result of the parties trading money for time. That is, the tenant will agree to move by a date certain without the need for trial or lengthy litigation if the landlord agrees to waive all or part of the rent. If your property is not registered and there is no chance of collecting back money in court, your negotiating power is greatly diminished. You can’t give up a right you don’t have to begin with.

Luckily, there is a simple solution; register the property.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ONE AND TWO FAMILY RENTALS MUST BE REGISTERED WITH HPD

LANDLORDS: THE ATTORNEY FEES CLAUSE IN YOUR LEASE MAY BE A TRAP

If your tenant has a lease, chances are it contains a clause allowing you to collect attorney fees if you are the successful party in litigation arising out of the lease or the tenancy. Most often, that would be an eviction proceeding in housing court. That clause may wind up causing you headaches and costing you money.

While, typical leases give the landlord a right to collect attorney fees after a successful eviction proceeding, most do not give the tenant the same right if the landlord is not successful. It may appear then that the tenant’s cost to defend against your action is not your problem. Not so.

Real Property Law §234 provides that if a lease for residential property allows the landlord to collect fees, the tenant shall also have that right if they are the prevailing party in litigation arising out of the lease, whether or not the lease allows for it. The intent of the law was to level the legal playing field between landlord and tenant. A tenant could now think about mounting a more expensive defense if the landlord might have to pay the fees. In most situations, a landlord has very little incentive to have that clause in the lease.

Most eviction proceedings in Queens and Brooklyn are started because tenants are not paying rent. Those actions could be non-payments, where the landlord is suing for rent, or holdover proceedings where the landlord wants to evict the tenant regardless of whether or not rent is paid.  Most tenants who don’t pay rent don’t have money. In small houses that are not regulated by rent stabilization, there is very little chance of collecting back rent and the goal of most of these eviction proceedings is to have the tenant move. Tenants who don’t have money to pay rent, also don’t have money to pay legal fees. While you might be able to get a judgment for your fees after spending extra money on a trial, there is very little chance you will be able to collect. On the other hand, if you lose, a successful tenant will probably be able to enforce a judgment for fees against you.

The solution for small, unregulated landlords is don’t give leases. If you do decide to give your tenant a lease, you may want to consider removing the legal fees clause. If you have rent stabilized tenants, you cannot change any of the terms on renewal but for new tenants, leases do not have to have a fee clause.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on LANDLORDS: THE ATTORNEY FEES CLAUSE IN YOUR LEASE MAY BE A TRAP

AIRBNB BASIS FOR EVICTION FROM NYC LUXURY APARTMENT

A New York City Housing Judge has found that a rent regulated tenant whose legal monthly rent is over $9,000 with a preferential rent of $6,670, was guilty of profiteering when he charged $649.00 per night for his luxury midtown apartment through bookings obtained from listings on Airbnb.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on AIRBNB BASIS FOR EVICTION FROM NYC LUXURY APARTMENT

Small Property Owners Threatened By Section 8

In 2008, the New York City Council passed Local Law 10 prohibiting landlords of buildings with 6 or more apartments from discriminating against tenants on the basis of source of income including Section 8. An amendment to Local Law 10, Int 827-A, would prohibit all landlords from discriminating on the basis of source of income regardless of the number of units in your building. So, even if you are an occupant owner of a 2 family house, you would not be able to deny tenancy based only on the fact that the tenant is on Section 8.

Section 8 is a federal subsidy that is administered through the New York City Housing Authority. Acceptance of Section 8 would impose legal and contractual burdens on small landlords that would not otherwise be present. First of all, after you agree to rent to your new tenant, your apartment will have to be inspected and approved by Section 8. Section 8 has a list of Housing Quality Standards (HQS). When I called, Section 8 operators would not disclose how long this process takes. It is also not clear whether you are required to hold the apartment pending approval.

Once your apartment is approved you will be required to enter into a one year, 12 page HAP contract with NYCHA that regulates owner and tenancy obligations. Here are just two highlights:
-Tenant must be given a one year lease. This is an additional burden since landlords of small, unregulated buildings are not required to give leases. A lease in a small property could spell disaster. You can check out my article Who Does a Lease Protect.

-If your apartment is inspected by Section 8 inspectors during the tenancy and HQS violations are recorded, you are required to certify repair, including the tenant’s signature, or be subjected to a re-inspection to verify repairs. If your tenant will not sign or allow access to the inspector, your rent subsidy will be suspended. The HAP contract does say that subsidies will not be suspended if HQS violations are caused by the tenant. It does NOT say how or by whom that determination will be made or how long it might take. So, if the Section 8 subsidy of $1200 on your two bedroom apartment is suspended how long can you wait to resolve all of these issues?

These are just two of the problems surrounding this proposed amendment. There are many other requirements under the HAP contract that could spell disaster for small property owners. If you agree that this is not an appropriate measure, please contact your Council Member and your Community Board. If time allows, I will be posting further comments on this issue.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Small Property Owners Threatened By Section 8

WHO DOES A LEASE REALLY PROTECT?

WHO DOES A LEASE REALLY PROTECT AND SHOULD YOU GIVE ONE?

I have discussed this subject with my clients hundreds of times over the years and my position has not changed. If you are a Queens landlord of residential property with less than six apartments and are not subject to regulations such as Rent Control or Rent Stabilization, you do not have to offer a lease to prospective tenants or renew a lease for tenants who already live in your building. During the almost 20 years that I have been a landlord tenant attorney representing landlords in NYC, I cannot remember a single time that a lease worked to protect a landlord in a residential setting. If you have a good tenant, you want to keep them. If you have a bad tenant, you don’t. This is true whether there is a lease in effect or not and is probably one of the most key factors in managing a small property.

Evicting Your Tenant Without a Lease

If there is no lease and you wish to evict a tenant, you can. Period. You do not have to state a reason. Your tenant must be served with a legally compliant notice that gives them an opportunity to move before you start your case. If your notice expires and they are still there, your tenants will be served and a court date set.  As long as your basis for eviction is not an illegal one, there are few defenses to this kind of action and you can be almost sure of an outcome in your favor. Most of these cases are settled.

How a Lease Protects a Tenant

To save some time here, you might want to approach this the way I sometimes evaluate the list of ingredients on food at the supermarket. If I glance at it and it’s too long, I put it back. So, just on the basis of print space, you can stop now. Or…  Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WHO DOES A LEASE REALLY PROTECT?

TENANT HAS NO RIGHT TO LIVE IN AN APARTMENT FOR FREE

LANDLORD’S MONTH TO MONTH EVICTION CASE NOT DISMISSED
Retention of Rent Check After Expiration of Thirty Day Eviction Notice OK

A Nassau County Housing Court judge has rejected the findings of several higher courts and held that retention of a rent check from Section 8 after expiration of the notice to terminate tenancy but before service of the holdover petition (the window period) does not vitiate the notice and is not grounds for dismissal. Generally, courts have held that acceptance of rent during the window period is fatal to the proceeding because it causes the intentions of the landlord to be equivocal. That is true even if the rent check is not cashed or if payment is part of a larger payment by Section 8 for more than one tenant.

In 385 Bayview LLC v. Warren, the judge held that unless the landlord has given the tenant reason to think that acceptance of rent during that window period indicates that the landlord no longer wants possession of the premises, there is no equivocation and the notice is effective. The decision indicates that the notice to terminate this month to month tenancy expired on June 30, 2015 and that the landlord received a subsidy payment from Section 8 on July 1, 2015. According to the case, the petition was served on July 14, 2015, making the window period July 1, 2015 through July 14, 2015. Based on decisions by higher New York courts, that would usually be enough for dismissal.

This time, the judge reasoned that there could not possibly any equivocation of the landlord’s intentions since the tenant was not even aware of whether the subsidy payment was accepted or returned. He further stated, “… we do not agree that a landlord must return an unsolicited payment, and thereby allow the tenant to occupy the apartment at no cost, in order to retain its right to proceed on a timely served nonrenewal notice.”

All in agreement say aye!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on TENANT HAS NO RIGHT TO LIVE IN AN APARTMENT FOR FREE

LANDLORD MUST PAY ALMOST $1 MILLION IN FOR OVERCHARGE ON STABILIZED CENTRAL PARK DUPLEX

According to the Daily News, an Upper West Side Tenant has been awarded almost $1 million dollars in overcharges for his 3 bedroom 2 bath duplex apartment.  The article reports that the court found that the overcharge, stemming from luxury deregulation while the building was subject to J-51 benefits, was willful.  The Rent Stabilization Code provides that where rent overcharges are willful, courts may impose treble damages, that is one dollar for every dollar overcharged.  The court also lowered the tenant’s rent form $3750 to $784/month.

The ruling stems from a 2009 case involving thousands of apartments in Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on LANDLORD MUST PAY ALMOST $1 MILLION IN FOR OVERCHARGE ON STABILIZED CENTRAL PARK DUPLEX

BASEMENT APARTMENTS IN ONE FAMILY HOUSES

If you are New York landlord seeking to evict a tenant from a basement apartment in a one family house, some good news.  An appellate court has clarified that there is no bar to the collection of rent from a tenant in a basement apartment located in a house  with a certificate of occupancy for only one dwelling. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment