Rent Stabilized Bldgs & Opt-Out Clauses

You can't make any changes or add riders to the form of the rent stabilized lease. The lease itself is a fixed document and alterations are proscribed. The reason is to prevent landlords from adding riders to dilute the rights granted under the leases. For example, I've had problems where a landlord WANTED to accept a tenant, but they had bad credit or whatever and the landlord would still have accepted them with more security, but you can't do that with a RS lease, so noth LL and tenant lost out.

how can i find a listing of rent stablized bldgs. in Manhatta.

yeah, ho do you find rent stabe-bldgs in manhattan ???

good question julia :)

that's the most important for me because it allows me to know what the LL can charge when the lease is up.

See http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/zip.html

NWT...you always come thru..thaks

REO - while you are generally right on things you missed this one. There is no state/city sponsored RS lease. Each landlord has his own lease, although the Blumberg lease is so common that I understand why some might think RS is a one lease fits all world.
But because what is and is not allowed under RS has been litigated ad nauseum most RS leases are similar but they don't have to be (for instance a RS lease can say that there is no subletting, but case law allows for it - so why would someone outlaw it in a lease, well because the laws may change - of course if a tenant wants to sublet even though his lease precludes it today's courts would rule in the favor of the tenant.

As for the OP's question - rent stabilized leases must be for 1 or 2 years - some may argue that giving an early termination clause means that the lease is not for 1 or 2 years - although I find that to be a stretch. I assume the landlords are just telling you that it's the law because it's not in their best interest to give you such a clause. But since the 1 or 2 year rule is written to protect the rights of the tenant I find it very hard to believe that a court would not allow such a clause to be enforceable by you.

julia - very important to know that RS restrictions follow the apartment not the building. So even though an apartment building could mostly be RS is doesn't mean that every unit in the building is stabilized (although it's possible that every unit is RS).

Jazzman - great point! If a certain apartment has turned over more it may no longer be RS, while the apartment next doot could very well be.

Thanks for all the comments. Jazzman, I think you are right. I've done some research on this issue, and there is nothing that provides that an early termination clause cannot be added in the tenant's favor. IN FACT, the Blumberg lease you mentioned, expressly includes one as a possible rider! http://www.blumberglegalforms.com/Forms/56.pdf

It is amazing the lies landlords and agents will feed you. If you don't want to give me an early termination clause, just say so, but don't deny me one under the guise that it isn't legal.

In addition, I attempted to negotiate the rent down. Many buidlings are offering "net effective" rents, where they offer you a lease with X number of last months free. I am not interested in such deals, but would rather just have a lower rent. I was again fed a line that because it is a rent stabilized apartment it's not possible to charge anything than the regulated rate. While true that the landlord cannot go ABOVE the regulated rate, there is nothing preventing a downward deparature, also known as a preferential rate. Here is a link to a Department of Housing document discussing this: http://www.rsanyc.net/pdf/orafac40.pdf

"There is no state/city sponsored RS lease. Each landlord has his own lease, although the Blumberg lease is so common that I understand why some might think RS is a one lease fits all world. "

Looking at what I wrote, I see it's easy to read (and I would) that there's only one lease form, and that's not what I meant. What I meant was each lease is absolutely identical in all it's elements (so if the lettering looks different, or you use the Blumberg form or another, the wording is the same). And this is where I disagree with you: you CAN'T put in a "no subletting" - it makes the lease voidable, and I believe I've actually seen cases where landlords got sanctioned for doing so (but I've too lazy right now to look up citations).

30yrs - are you sure - the lease sponsored by RSA is different from the Blumberg lease right. They don't say the same things - they are similar but they don't use the same language. Plus, RS attorneys have drafter there own leases that will differ from both the Blumberg and the RSA lease.

I'm going by what one of the top attorneys at one of the top L&T firms has told me, in addition to discussions with many of the larger landlords who lost cases for very minor infractions. But if you've had experiences where tenant have challenged your non-standard leases and you've won, keep doing what you're doing because it's working for you. But I also don't really understand when you say the Blumberg Lease, because Blumberg doesn't have RS lease that I'm aware of: they have a "Standard form of Apartment Lease" which then requires a "Rent Stabilization Rider", and any wording in the RS rider over-rides anything in the lease, including alterations.

Each and every RS lease does not have to be identical in "all its elements." If the varying terms are in accordance with all applicable laws, then there is no reason for a lease to be voidable. It's not advisable, but a written lease isn't even required for RS apartments. If there is no written lease, then common law and statutes apply to govern the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant. I also take with a heavy shake of salt those who cite "minor infractions" of the law as the reasons why they lost cases. Such explanations sound similar to those who say a criminal defendant was freed on a technicality, and upon closer examination, evidence shows that the "technicality" being referred to was actually the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Amen to HDLC on your remark on criminal matters.

Also happen to be right on with the lease issues.

Have either of you actually spent any time IN L&T COURT ITSELF? PERSONALLY?

No, I had never been to L&T court. But, I had Sam Himmelstein working for me and fended off 4 of my landlords attorneys over 5 years - does that count that I know what I'm talking about?

So if I wrote Albert Einstein a check it means I understand the theory of relativity?

And exactly what issues did he raise to keep you in place for 5 years?

I was in a rent-stabilized building (an 80/20 building) and I was able to get a letter from the landlord that allowed me, at the six-month mark in my lease, to exit for zero cost, provided I gave a certain amount of notice (I think it was 60 days, but can't recall for sure).

This was during the second year of my tenancy, and I had signed one-year leases each time. (I also got him to do the same letter during my third year of tenancy.)

I don't know anything about how "by the book" this was, but my landlord was willing to do it. The one extra sweetener for the landlord was that I had a lease that expired November 1, so the exit point (had I chosen to do it) would have been at the much more desirable May 1 point in the year.

30 yrs said: "Have either of you actually spent any time IN L&T COURT ITSELF? PERSONALLY?"

I have been a litigant in Landlord-Tenant Court and the case was resolved through a settlement agreement. However, your question is more smart-ass than substantive, and certainly not relevant, because the facts of any one particular case in court stand on themselves as applied to the law. Your mistake is asserting an incorrect statement of law concerning alleged requirements as pertain to "all elements" of a RS lease. It is clear from your posts that you misunderstand basic contract principles.

And it's clear from your posts you haven't been to L&T often, where judges don't even feel constrained to follow black letter law. If you had, you wouldn't be crowing about how people haven't gotten screwed on "technicalities", when you'd seen hundreds screwed not only on technicalities, but on less than technicalities, but where the Judge just plain ignored the law. now, you'll say that this is impossible, doesn't happen, etc. But it just means you haven't seen enough of what really goes on in L&T.

Nothing you last wrote is relevant to the assertions you make concerning requirements of a RS lease.

It actually sounds like a familiar song with a different verse. Just replace "L&T" with some other court system (Civil, Criminal) and that song has been played thousands of times. But since everything old gets recycled at an opportune time, you can just make the cut and paste, send it over to 'Fox News' and they'll run it as the lead editorial for the Sotomayor hearings under title of "judicial activism."

You're right: what actually happens in L&T is totally irrelevant to the discussion. And me seeing on 2 separate occasions tenants who took their landlords to L&T solely because they originally took 2 months security and seeing the Court not only order the return of the month, but awarding treble damages, citing nothing other than "you don't get to decides what the tenant's rights are under a Rent Stabilized Lease" as the reason is totally irrelevant as well.

And you, having NO experience with the customs, standards and practices of L&T know what goes on because you have divined that the map really is the terrain.

Until and unless you can cite statute(s) and/or controlling case law to support your assertions concerning the mandatory construction of all RS leases, then all you have to offer are obviously biased hearsay reports which contain nothing to back up the substance of your claim. If these responses are an example of what landlords and their agents are doing in court, then it's no wonder the judges keep throwing the book at you and awarding damages for what I'm sure are more than just nebulously defined "technicalities" and "minor infractions."

Your lack of understanding of what goes on in the real world doesn't make it spin in the opposite direction. I gave you a perfect example, and your answer is basically "nah, nah, nah". So I'll stop trying to teach the pig so sing.

1: You said: 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO: I'm going by what one of the top attorneys at one of the top L&T firms has told me, in addition to discussions with many of the larger landlords who lost cases for very minor infractions

2: Then you asked: 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO: Have either of you actually spent any time IN L&T COURT ITSELF? PERSONALLY?

3: I replied: oxycrew: No, I had never been to L&T court. But, I had Sam Himmelstein working for me and fended off 4 of my landlords attorneys over 5 years - does that count that I know what I'm talking about?

4: And you said: 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO: So if I wrote Albert Einstein a check it means I understand the theory of relativity?

-
I get it, it's ok for you to just state that you had a discussion with a top lawyer, but the fact that I actually retained a top lawyer (who I named and his top status is verifiable) and that he successfully represented me in a situation germane to this discussion for a five year period against four attorneys, that's not good enough. hmm.

And to your smart-alecky comment on writing a check to Albert Einstein - well, I suppose if I hired Albert Einstein and worked with him for 5 years, and he successfully helped me convert some matter to energy, well, yes, that would be parallel to my experience in the rent stabilized matter, and yes, I think in that 5 year period with Albert Einstein working for/with me, that I'd understand a bit about the theory of relativity.

hey would you go to a doctor who has been practicing for 30 years but graduated at the bottom of his class from a school in South America?

http://www.simpsonstrivia.com.ar/simpsons-photos/wallpapers/dr-nick-riviera.gif

"I get it, it's ok for you to just state that you had a discussion with a top lawyer, but the fact that I actually retained a top lawyer (who I named and his top status is verifiable) and that he successfully represented me in a situation germane to this discussion for a five year period against four attorneys, that's not good enough. hmm."

No. It's not that you retained him and he successfully represented you which is no good. What YOU said was you *never actually went to court* ("No, I had never been to L&T court"), so you have no knowledge of what goes on there. THAT is what I objected to. In addition, you are avoiding answering a germane question which was posed to you:" And exactly what issues did he raise to keep you in place for 5 years?". So it would seem that either you don't know what was going on, or you don't want to say what was going on because it doesn't support your position, and perhaps strengthens the position that an awful lot of L&T matters do get tied up in minor technicalities. And Mr. Himmelstein is known as an EXCELLENT tenant rep (especially when it comes to obtaining the highest buy-out settlements for RS tenants) particularly because he's very good at tying up cases for years over the technicalities of RS.

"And to your smart-alecky comment on writing a check to Albert Einstein - well, I suppose if I hired Albert Einstein and worked with him for 5 years, and he successfully helped me convert some matter to energy, well, yes, that would be parallel to my experience in the rent stabilized matter, and yes, I think in that 5 year period with Albert Einstein working for/with me, that I'd understand a bit about the theory of relativity."

I'll reiterate what I said supra: YOU said you never went to L&T and you failed to answer a direct question where you could have proven your point ("And exactly what issues did he raise to keep you in place for 5 years?"). I'm curious as to exactly how much you and Mr. Himmelstein collaborated on the legal strategy in your 5 year long case? Where you never actually appeared yourself? What was your input into the legal strategy? Did you read both party's papers and make suggestions to Mr. Himmelstein as to improvements in your submissions to the Court? So I stand by my prior comment that handing someone a check IN AND OF ITSELF means zilch in terms of understanding what it is that they did for you or how the system works. But one thing is now obvious: you come from being a RS tenant who has taken advantage of the system and it shows your bias (in the same way that seeing landlords treated unfairly by the court skews mine).

So, instead of just saying you retained him and he fought off 4 attorneys, why don't you tell us what the situation was, what your experience was, what you won based on, etc. NOW THAT WOULD CLARIFY THINGS. But I'm going to guess you won't do that because if anything it would prove the opposite of what you're trying to claim.

You got it all totally right 30yrs...

Because I didn't go to court, I know nothing.

But let me just point out by quoting you where your experience comes from, "I'm going by what one of the top attorneys at one of the top L&T firms has told me, in addition to discussions with many of the larger landlords who lost cases for very minor infractions."

so I'm still struggling to find above where it says you stepped foot in L&T court. Can you help me clarify your un"biased" wisdom?

And through all this 30 yrs still cannot provide any proof that all RS leases must "absolutely identical in all it's (sic) elements." But I've seen lots of evidence as to why judges keep handing his landlords their asses.

9 NYCRR § 2520.12

§ 2520.12 Effect of this Code on leases and other rental agreements

The provisions of any lease or other rental agreement shall remain in force pursuant to the terms thereof, except insofar as those provisions are inconsistent with the ETPA, the RSL or this Code, and in such event such provisions shall be void and unenforceable. For housing accommodations made subject to the RSL and this Code pursuant to section 2520.11(c) of this Part, where such leases or rental agreements are so inconsistent as to render them ineffective in defining the rights and duties of tenants and owners, the DHCR may order the provision of new leases consistent with the ETPA, the RSL and this Code. No renewal lease or vacancy lease offered to a tenant shall contain any right of cancellation or eviction by the owner during the term thereof except as provided for by the ETPA, the RSL or this Code.

Statutory authority:
N.Y.C. Administrative Code, §§ 26-511(b), 26-518(a)
History:
Added § 2520.12 on 5/01/87.

oxycrew: thanks for proving my point by totally avoiding answering ANY of the questions as to what youre ACTUAL experience was.

HDLC: I've given one concrete example (which occurred more than once in my presence): your turn. You provide ONE showing your side, I'll match that one, too. Ball's in your court.

There is no standardized lease.

Per the RGB "

See also Leases-Renewal & Vacancy FAQ's

A lease is a contract between a landlord and tenant which contains the terms and conditions of rental. The vast majority of leases are written, although oral rental agreements are common. The terms of all leases are fully negotiable, although vigorous negotiations rarely occur where vacancies for affordable housing are scarce. Usually tenants accept the terms drafted by landlords. Occasionally, riders are added governing such things as pets, use of washing machines or permission to make minor alterations. Generally, leases cannot be changed while they are in effect unless both parties agree. In unregulated buildings, a rental without any agreement as to the term is considered a "month-to-month" tenancy which is terminable on 30 days notice.

In New York, most leases contain provisions which have been superseded or modified by statute. For example, a lease clause which prohibits subletting is no longer enforceable in most cases because subletting is governed by statute.
A "standard" lease form is usually a form produced by one of the companies that produce standard forms. For example, Julius Blumberg Inc. produces a variety of lease forms for various types of tenancies. In some cases lawyers groups or industry organizations, such as the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), may prepare drafts of "standard" agreements.

Rent stabilized tenants have the right to either a one or two year lease when they move into an apartment. If no lease is given and the apartment is rent stabilized or rent controlled, the tenancy is governed completely by statute and common law rules.

Written leases must use words with common and everyday meanings and must be clear and coherent. Sections of leases must be appropriately captioned and the print must be large enough to read easily. If the type is too small or the lease is unclear, it may not be enforceable by the party who drafted or supplied it.
Unless the lease states otherwise, the apartment must be made available to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. If the apartment is not available when agreed, the tenant has the right to cancel the lease and obtain a full refund of any deposit.

"so I'm still struggling to find above where it says you stepped foot in L&T court. Can you help me clarify your un"biased" wisdom?"

Try reading the thread before doing your victory dance:
"
30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
about 4 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

You're right: what actually happens in L&T is totally irrelevant to the discussion. And me seeing on 2 separate occasions tenants who took their landlords to L&T solely because they originally took 2 months security and seeing the Court not only order the return of the month, but awarding treble damages, citing nothing other than "you don't get to decides what the tenant's rights are under a Rent Stabilized Lease" as the reason is totally irrelevant as well. ."

9 NYCRR § 2520.13

§ 2520.13 Waiver of benefit void

An agreement by the tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the RSL or this Code is void; provided, however, that based upon a negotiated settlement between the parties and with the approval of the DHCR, or a court of competent jurisdiction, or where a tenant is represented by counsel, a tenant may withdraw, with prejudice, any complaint pending before the DHCR. Such settlement shall be binding upon subsequent tenants. However, where the settlement encompasses surrender of occupancy by the tenant or the tenant is no longer in possession of the housing accommodation as of the date of the settlement, such settlement shall not be binding upon any subsequent tenant, except to the extent that the complaint being settled is subject to the time limitations set forth in the RSL and this Code.

Statutory authority:
N.Y.C. Administrative Code, §§ 26-511(b), 26-518(a)
History:
Added § 2520.13 on 5/01/87; amended § 2520.13 on 12/20/00.

Interesting from your post I don't actually see that you stepped foot in L&T court. And even if you didn't say it before, you just had the opportunity to clarify absolutely that you did.

Now, don't call me nit-picky, after all, you are the broker who shows apartments and dances around the square footage without actually stating it, just to protect your interests: "But I don't quote square footage. So when the [other] broker asked the "What's the Square footage?" question, I simply replied:"Well, the building is 20 X 44". The unit is the entire top floor, minus the staircase (which isn't much)."

So is your failure to be clear that you've been in L&T court just an accidental oversight, or are you being a bit too clever, dancing around this omission too and you've once again got two standards.

Oh, lastly, on the two cases where your real estate client lost, did you "collaborate on the legal strategy" or provide "input into the legal strategy? Did you read both party's papers and make suggestions to" your real estate client who lost the case or otherwise make "improvements in your " real estate clients' unconvincing "submissions to the Court?"

Jazzman:

First, understand that most of what you quoted wasn't pertaining to RS leases, but leases in general. Go take a look at the RSA lease and the Blumberg lease: they are identical in their elements. Some of the wording in each of the elements may be slightly different, but the elements themselves aren't different. And the reason is you can't change those elements.

RGB even mandates that every tenant must be given THE "Rent Stabilization Rider", but goes on to add that even this is only for informational purposes because the RS guidelines are what govern every RS lease.

oxy: you've passed the point of talking drivel and I won't waste any more time responding to your nonsense. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

"oxycrew: thanks for proving my point by totally avoiding answering ANY of the questions as to what youre ACTUAL experience was."

Interesting that I came on board this discussion when you started talking about your knowledge of criminal matters. I sat on a jury 3 years ago on a criminal matter, the ADA called the police to testify for the people about WHY THERE WERE NO PRINTS. We acquitted, there was no evidence.

An explanation of the absence of evidence is not equivalent to the presence of evidence.

I'm able to tear down your weak arguments and made up facts just based on your postings alone. That I don't choose to add additional support to my argument doesn't void my argument. Except to you of course.

By the way, this is how Mr. Himmelstein and I were successful. We worked against inarticulate people (lawyers) on the wrong side of the argument. It gets so frustrating ... for them.

REO -The point is there is no standard lease.

Contract law 101 stays that anything signed in a contract (any contract) that is illegal is unenforceable - so accordingly, because so much of the rent stabilization world is legislated there is less freedom for landlords when drafting leases. But, there can be very different elements in different RS leases.

Enough said, I'm out.

Jazzman's very succinct paragraph above is correct and consistent with all statutes. 30 yrs., you lose again. Case closed.

What happened? 30yrs, all that experience (is it 30 years or 50 years?), all that beating up naive people in the NYC real estate market, but when confronted by fact and a stronger argument - you lose here in this discussion, and your real estate clients also lose when they go to court.