Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SenorJuansie t1_itm5j49 wrote

> one landlord told me ten years ago

sure, there's no one more reliable than a landlord trying to recover a rent controlled apartment that he can gut and rent for $7500/mo.

−1

Sea_Sand_3622 t1_itm6bzo wrote

Yeah you’re right …. Why would any responsible property manager not completely renovate an apartment that has seen no improvements in 60+ years ? It makes no sense at all.

5

OverlordXenu t1_itm8q61 wrote

you see, they were actually supposed to be maintained and updated over those 60 years, but scum landlords routinely refuse to provide even basic maintenance for the apartment. the landlord's own illegal neglect should not enable them to deregulate an apartment.

7

Sea_Sand_3622 t1_itmft1n wrote

You just don’t get it , “basic “? Install a bathroom while the $250/ tenant is still living there. This apartment was probably in 1940 shit condition because it’s from 1940!!! if not 1920 !!!! The wiring was 60+ years old , no closets , the kitchen cabinets are wood falling apart. The apartment is completely painted with lead paint.
Lucky the whole house wasn’t burnt down in the 1960s and 1970s. Or worse , the city could of foreclosed on it and they would of been running it until it caved in the 1980s and then demolished it and sold to a politically connected developer.

2

of_patrol_bot t1_itmfu59 wrote

Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.

It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.

Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.

Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.

0

KaiDaiz t1_itn3vos wrote

They were prob maintained to the code 60 yrs ago or whenever tenant signed original lease that's reflective in the rent. Most of the modern codes and required updates don't go into effect until you do renovations. Till then, its only repair as needed if violate something not replace.

0

SenorJuansie t1_itm6vr7 wrote

i don't understand your clap back.

i've done dozens of succession cases, and in every single one the landlord claims the successor is a johnny come lately or a scammer, etc. landlords are full of shit.

2

Sea_Sand_3622 t1_itm8nzs wrote

My friend on the upper west side , she was rent stabilized and when the building went coop in the late 1980s , she bought her apartment at the insider price . The older rent controlled husband and wife in the apartment directly below hers did not buy , they stayed at the cheap rent controlled rent . The husband dies in @1996, the wife gets sick in 2002, and moves to New Jersey to live with her daughter, but her grandson jumps into her now empty bed. The managing agent for the original still owner of the apartment take the grandmother to court for non primary. The grandmother via a free legal aid lawyer that the grandson found initially claims he’s in the apartment to help out the grandmother. She’s in outpatient rehab in nj and will be back living in the apartment soon. Then they change the story and he claims succession rights saying he’s been in the apartment for three years , living there and helping his grandmother, there was a trial , he had almost no paper trail to the apartment. 5 residents , including my friend testified that they never saw him and his grandmother together . He had a free legal aid lawyer or some kind of community center low fee cheap lawyer.

You tell me who are the gamers of the system and who represents them for free. A complete waste of court time for this scammer. My friend was a bit reluctant to testify but the grandson was a complete ahole. Everyone in the building hated him. He asked people to testify for him and no one knew who he was. They all knew the grandmother. He was responsible for her leaving to get her bed empty. He was a deadbeat .

1

ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itnfi1p wrote

Succession claims are the tenant’s burden to prove precisely because the landlord would not have enough information to know whether the relative has stayed with the tenant long enough to be entitled to succeed. Even if the tenant has a valid claim, they apparently never sought to be named as a co-tenant on the lease, despite claiming to have lived there for 2 years.

0

SenorJuansie t1_itpqmeb wrote

c'mon now. no landlord would ever willingly add a non spouse to an rs lease for a valuable apartment.

1

ConstitutionalCarrot t1_itpxnsp wrote

Why not? They get someone else on the hook for the rent and tenancy obligations and it’s not like if they get rid of the prime tenant they can drastically increase the rent if it is a rent stabilized apartment. They’d either have to spend $$$ litigating the successor’s claim or time and $$ finding a new tenant who would be sbj to the same RGB increases anyway.

Again, it would not matter if the LL rejected the request to add the relative because it is the successor’s burden to prove they asked. If they cannot meet that extremely low bar, set by statute, then maybe they are the ones full of shit.

1