Landlord trying to pull a fast one on a rent stabalized apt in a small building here in manhattan by saying my friend doesn't really live there full time. How do you prove otherwise ? He shares time staying with his fiance half of the time just a few blocks away.

Then the landlord is correct. He doesn't live there full time. Tell him to move out.

Yikes, I was not joking. While it would be difficult to evict this individual (and I hate to see anyone lose their home), this is clearly a violation of the "spirit" of the law and he should take that into consideration when he cries victim of landlord harassment. I don't know what the inflection point should be. Certainly not 10% of time away but also not >50%.

Here's a good overview of the primary-residence requirements: http://www.tenant.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6788

If the guy loses, he'd still be a contender for a Darwin Award. He'd have had a valuable asset -- an under-market RS lease -- but out of ignorance or folly just threw it away.

Safe to say the landlord wouldn't bother if she didn't have the evidence lined up.

I disagree. Keeping within the "spirit" of the law, according to the doc NWT provided, would include being away from your home for extended periods of time due to work, family obligations, or other such obvious factors. Spending time with a fiance doesn't qualify. My opinion only: Get out of the way and let someone else benefit from this govt largesse. I, for one, am not fortunate to have ever had a rent controlled/stabilized apt. And I certainly wouldn't whine about losing it to an audience which, by and large, suffers from increased market rents and inflated RE prices due to so many of these units being kept off the open market in perpetuity. On a personal level, I'm sure he's a fine human being and, as I stated, hope he doesn't lose his home.

So, a person who has a rent stabilized apartment is not allowed to have relationships where-in a few nights a week are spent at the other person's apartment? Assuming the original post is telling the truth and the tenant "lives" in the regulated apartment-- but occasionally sleeps a few blocks away overnight--it's ridiculous to suggest he should lose his home. To do so would, basically, mean that only free market tenants are allowed non-platonic romantic relationships.

w23rd ... that is exactly whats going. He spends a few nights at his ladies apt a few blocks away. Nobody wants to give up their place here in the city or move in together unless they are absolutely sure.

w23rd: Phrases such as "Landlord trying to pull a fast one" and "He shares time staying with his fiance half of the time" don't compute for me. It's either one or the other and I'm certainly not taking up the landlord's case on this thread. You use the word "occasionally"; by my definition occasionally is far less than "half the time". Maybe I'll engage in a bit of self-reflection and call myself an embittered purchaser/renter of market-rate Manhattan units.

so now "half the time" is "a few nights." Make up your mind so people can debate the facts.

No big deal. You sleep at home more than 183 nights.

The OP said "half the time", not "occasional".

There're lots of these cases. The judge weighs everything, not just one factor. E.g., the recent case where the tenant lost at first, lost on appeal, but finally won her second appeal 3-2.

i hear you. That's why I prefaced with "assuming this is true". I know and have known many, many people who abuse the stabilization system by subletting/holding/airbnb-ing apartments they no longer truly live in. But I've also known folks who've been bullied by landlords dying to evict long-term tenants who've done nothing wrong. It all comes down to what the truth of his living situation is and I'm taking the post at face value. If what the o.p. wrote is valid, the landlord is totally out of line.

I hear you. That's why I prefaced with "assuming this is true". I know and have known many people who abuse the stabilization system by subletting/holding/airbnb-ing apartments they no longer truly live in. But I've also known folks who've been bullied by landlords dying to evict long-term tenants who've done nothing wrong. It all comes down to what the truth of his living situation is and I'm taking the post at face value. If what the o.p. wrote is valid, the landlord is totally out of line.

MIBNYC.. just curious as to how the landlord "found out" he wasn't sleeping/lining there full - time??

does landlord live on 1st floor by doorway so he can see traffic (or lack thereof) or did a neighbor rat him out/etc? just curious to these things, thanks.

"Crooked"? HA! It seams like its the other party taking advantage of the RS program's widely abused and not otherwise verified or enforced rules. Who can blame him though? I am willing to bet the tenant stays at his fiance's much nicer place a few blocks away, and she would not be caught dead in his old RS apartment. He does not want to give it up, and I will even go as far as predicting that they have been engaged for at least a year, with no wedding date planned. Just another set of "golden handcuffs' of Rent Stabilization! Way to "protect the middle class".

Like I said before, if there was a way to verify who gets (and keeps) RS apartments, it would benefit those on both sides who play by the rules, and punish those on both sides who do not.

(Disclaimer, I am a LL)

@ss400k .. Management just said they were told he wasn't living there. He works 6 days a week 12hr days and he hardly sees any of his neighbors also. His drivers license, Amex, car registration, cell bill all are mailed to his apt. He does spend a few nights at his ladies apt to naturally maintain a relationship. Landlord does live on first floor but he never sees him

"sounds like ll is a scumbag who bought a RS bldg on the cheap and wants to windfall by pressuring unknowing tenants to leave--were i the tenant id tell the ll to f off (figuratively, that is) until he provides a legit legal filing, then fight--and do it all with email to retain record of communiocations"

So the landlord is a "scumbag" because he tries to hold his tenants to the letter of the law?

thanks MIBNYC.. please keep us updated with what happens, my gut says even if LL has a case it will be tough for him to prove since NYC is generally pro-tenant, but please keep us updated w interesting case! thnks

yikes, it's rent-controlled that's the miniscule percentage: less than 4%.

Rent-stabilized is about 45% in Manhattan. Apartments fall out, apartments are added due to landlords signing up for it in return for tax breaks, but the general trend is down. (The Roberts decision threw a wrench in the works, so we'll see that play out over the next several years.)

E.g., in 1999 for Manhattan, it was 4.2% controlled and 62.4% stabilized.

Lots of interesting statistics at http://furmancenter.org

That a RS or RC lease can be considered an "asset" is a huge issue.

Of course it's an asset.

The landlord paid less for the building because of the RC/RS apartments. The amount of "less" is more or less the value of the leases to the tenants.

It can also factor in divorce or bankruptcy: http://www.shakedandposner.com/Articles/Court-Rules-That-Rent-Stabilized-Leases-Have-Value-in-Bankruptcy.shtml

The issue is whether the state can give to some and take from others. It's been settled that yes, it can. If you try to see it as a sort of lottery, it's easier to stomach.

NWT said is well: "If you try to see it as a sort of lottery, it's easier to stomach." I recall reading that the genesis of these laws was to allow returning servicemen from WWI a reasonable place to live while they got on their feet after the War: return, get a job, move on. It was never designed to be passed on for generations. A lottery, however, implies that everyone has an equal chance of "winning". I will never have a chance of hitting the RS/RC lottery so it's a rigged game.

Its amazing in manhattan how hard maintaining a relationship can be when keeping your rent stabilized apt can make or break being with someone if you need to abide by the housing rules.

MIB: is this a new topic? Your OP was a very linear discussion about LL trying to remove tenant who "half of the time" lives with fiance(e). If abiding by RS guidelines results in relationships being torn asunder then this thread is veering off onto a new topic and not one that's as interesting to me, personally, as the OP.

Umm Beagle ... maybe I went a little sex in the city on my last comment but its a reality that does happen here in the city. Who wants to give up a nice RS in manhattan over a relationship and a LL possibly watching tenants like a hawk ?

The post-WWII housing shortage led to rents going so high that the legislature had to do something to appease the voters. Subsequent legislatures have continued to extend RC/RS, while sometimes tossing the landlords a bone. Market-rate tenants don't form the solid voting block that regulated tenants do, so it'll go on being chipped at until the only RS apartments will be those already at market.

why can't she stay in his place?

@ Snuffles ... She has a nicer RS and if the relationship goes south, big headache

Right, you'd think after spending three or four nights together for however long, they'd be ready to either shit or get off the pot.

33 years ago, I moved in in record time, but for some Psych 101 reason rather than the $180 rent....

@ NWT for $180 many would rather stay alone and keep a relationship with their RIGHT HAND

Thanks guys .. I really appreciate your insight and comments on the subject. This is a good board

they should evict him and give him the chair!!!

So, how long have they been engaged for? Golden handcuff'd

@ MAV ..2 years

I know a man who has lived with his father his entire life, waiting to inherit the RS apt. The father is in his 90s now and the man is in his 60s. The son never married and moved out because he didn't want to lose his "inheritance".

sounds like junior may have to put daddums on an ice floe pretty soon.

Do they have a wedding date?

This (broader subject, not just this individual one) is a very interesting sociological issue, and yes, one that maybe deserves its own thread aside from the legal discussion.

No wedding day yet but i believe they will just share spaces. One lives in Sutton place and the other on the upper west side

"He shares time staying with his fiance half of the time just a few blocks away". Sutton Place is not a few blocks away. This is the Mitt Romney of OPs.

@ Beagle ..sry meant upper eastside JACKASS

hahaha. Name calling when one's errors are pointed out. Or was it the comparison to Romney that got under your skin? If that sets you off, you've got pretty thin skin. You may run out of CAPPED curse words pretty darn quickly.

@ Beagle .. you are being a jackass. All politicians to me are liars and crooks. The best prez ever was NIXON

for some reason being name called in small caps is much more palatable. Thank you for that. Tomato/Tomahto. Nixon brought us the EPA which I'm a fan of. I enjoy being able to breath. Whether he is the BEST PRES EVER can remain your opinion. I'm a Clinton fan ('92-'00) and look forward to Hilary 2016 after Obama's second term.