Landlord Out of Line; Suggest Course of Action

When are you getting married?

How much time is left on the lease?

Do you intend to stay in this place?

Do you have any interest in any other apartment owned or controlled by present landlord?

Good Question. Very much interested in hearing the answer myself. You should submit this to the NY Times as well.

The question would seem to be whether a fiance has more legal rights than a room-mate sharing an apartment.
Thinking of it this way, the landlord may be correct. As far as If there are any lawyers or building owners here, perhaps they can add their own insight. As far as manners go, good luck on that one...

'The question would seem to be whether a fiance has more legal rights than a room-mate sharing an apartment.'

That is not the question here. Ignore that she is a fiancee. Lets say she is a plain roommate. Legally I am allowed to have her there (the landlord does not dispute that). The question is whether the landlord can legally prevent the roommate from receiving mail (isn't USPS under Federal regulations?) and whether the landlord can legally prevent me from receiving furniture simply because I have a roomamte now.

I would gently suggest that the real question is whether or not this entire situation is worth aggravating about. Most likely is that some idiot sent the wrong form letter to you. If so, why not call and see if this can be resolved without going to Defcon 1?

ukrguy, you should pass this by your lawyer, who can better advise you. Anything posted on this topic on Easy Street is not something you should rely on. You don't want to inappropriately respond to the managing agent.

I would let it go; trying to enforce manners is boorish anyway. Good manners dictate you overlook any roughness their unfortunate upbringing left behind. To the point of law: your landlord cannot restrict your choice of roommate, fiancée or girlfriend or boyfriend, neither can they prevent them from receiving mail or deliveries (subject to the same rules as other tenants.)
You went above and beyond what was required by notifying the managing agent, and look where it got you! If you intend to renew, add your fiancée's name at that time.

ukrguy, this is what I know as oppose to guess: if there are more people in the apt. than the original lease stipulates, the lease must be amended to reflect the change. Whoever those people are, they are not on the lease and the landlord can evict them.
The really easy solution: just put your fiancee on the lease and be done.

Really, why don't you put her on the lease? It's a liability question; her insurance means nothing because she's not on the lease.

I disagree with the title of the posting of your thread. The landlord IS in line. And I fail to see how that letter was rude, but whatever. If I were you, I would put your fiancee on the lease. If you don't want to do that, rather than get a lawyer involved, move.

you are legally allowed to have a roommate and they cannot restrict her mail. the furniture thing is very weird. agreed, just add her to the lease.

'ukrguy, this is what I know as oppose to guess: if there are more people in the apt. than the original lease stipulates, the lease must be amended to reflect the change. Whoever those people are, they are not on the lease and the landlord can evict them.
The really easy solution: just put your fiancee on the lease and be done.'

The landlord cannot evict them as long as I am currrent with the lease. I offered to put her on the lease -- it was the landlord who said I did not have to do this.

'I disagree with the title of the posting of your thread. The landlord IS in line. And I fail to see how that letter was rude, but whatever. If I were you, I would put your fiancee on the lease. If you don't want to do that, rather than get a lawyer involved, move.'

The letter is rude. Proper customer service and politness is something that can be reasonably expected. Sending a notice with the words 'NO' and 'NOT' in capital letters is very rude. While I do not want to get involved, I should. First, there is a possibility that my and/or fiancee's rights are being infringed upon. Second, I am due to move in September. If the landlord seems me taking this s**t now, they will really abuse me at security deposit time. Third, landlords get away with things because people are afraid to fight them. I have the money and the stamina to fight this. This is a playground bully effect:they are scary as long as you agree to be scared.

Since you say write that you "have the money and stamina to fight this", all for the three months you have left on your lease, good luck to you. I don't see how it's worth it. Getting lawyers involved will only make the situation worse for you. You might wind up in housing court where, even if you win your case, you lose.

What are you fighting?

You are going to bring a legal action because they sent you a stupid letter?

Better to channel that rage here against stupid posters and move on.

ukrguy, you expect too much of reverence for just paying what you agreed to pay. LL owns the place. Everyone who rents from him has the money to pay the rent. I really doubt that your/fiancee's rights were infringed on. Sounds a bit like an Eastern European attitude, for some reason.

By the way, unless you buy, your current LL will have to give you references for your next one.

Your landlord/mgmt sounds so lacking in strategic vision, let alone implementation, that I'm pretty sure you can just proceed as you wish -- fiancee moves in, gets mail, has furniture delivered -- and you wont' hear a peep. Especially if doormen are on your side, which I'm nearly certain they will be given that the LL/mgmt probably treats them with the same strategic thoughtfulness.

I once wrote a letter to British Airways requesting refund of a change-of-flight fee for a change that was beyond my control, and related to the operating procedure at the airport of origin (in Asia). The reply came on letterhead from the "Office of Profit Maximisation", denying my request. Very smooth! (But oh so politely worded.)

Salut, it's funny you should say that, because to me the LL/mgmt letter sounds like an Eastern European attitude, although it sounds like you mean ukrguy's

This is dumb. The mailboxes on the premises belong to the US Postal Service. If the landlord interferes with the delivery of anything, call the U.S. postal police.

As others said, you are entitled to have a roommate, and whether or not you have insurance is your own business.

I suspect that the landlord (a) just wants someone else to be put on the lease and on the hook for the rent, or (b) (more likely) has a form letter that is sent out in response to tenants regardless of whether the apartment is market rate or stablized, to mark its position that the roommate has no succession rights. I lived for 10 years in a very large building that had a small contingent of rent regulated apartments from its 80/20 roots and I regularly got notices and information requests plainly directed at regulated tenancies when I was not.

Ah....

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/18292-conditions-for-adding-a-second-person-my-wife-to-be-to-the-lease

the furniture thing is totally bizarre - could they even do this? why would they want to? I don't ever recall having to ask permission for furniture to be delivered as long as the delivery is done at the allowed times, and with the proper procedures. How could they even prove it wasn't your furniture?

and from their standpoint, i would think that the more moved in you are, the less likely you are to want to leave, which is a good thing - unless this is a rent stabilized situation.

alan,
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/18292-conditions-for-adding-a-second-person-my-wife-to-be-to-the-lease

The LL doesn't want a liability. Looks like ukrguy is a pretty litigious type, so if his fiancee as little as cuts her finger in the apartment, LL will be sued. Meanwhile, she's not on the lease, i.e. she's a guest. Perfect liability storm.

to salut: I am not litigious. I have been renting in Manhattan since 1998, never was in a housing court, never threatened to sue anyone, never sued anyone. Although due to my work (Wall Street) I spend a lot of time with lawyers. Also, I do not need anyone to revere me (you eluded to something like this in another thread). My concern is simply in the fact that the landlord is doing something illegal in the hope of getting me to do something else. If this is indeed a simple attempt to get me to add the fianceee to the lease, then he should have asked. Putting a gun to my head and then asking something will make me go looking for a gun.

Update: called the mgmt office, asked to hear their legal reasoning behind the furniture issue. Guess what? They changed their mind and now I can deliver all the furniture to my heart's content. Perhaps I should send them flowers and buy them a round of drinks after work.

Anyway, emotional and motivational issues aside: does anyone here actually know whether what the landlord is affirming with respect to the mail is legal?

yes it is douc**y - but i have to agree with CC - do you want to go Ving Rhames medevial over this?

dude - you are showing your, i'm guessing, British disproportionate overreaction to a perceived rudeness for 90 days that will fly by in a snap?

This is much ado about nothing. Although landlords seem to take the "lord" part a bit too seriously, the same can be said for managing agents in owner-occupied buildings. This is just NY and the real estate industry.

As far as the USPS issue, the landlord isn't doing anything legal or illegal. He just sent you a dumb letter. He hasn't prevented you from receiving mail. Tampering with, disabling or destroying lavatory smoke detectors, or interfering with the US mail is not legal. He hasn't done that. The USPS doesn't care who receives mail there so long as there's nothing illegal, perishable, fragile, or liquid in it. The USPS also won't be asking the landlord for permission to deliver the mail.

And as far as lawyers are concerned, seriously?
I once got a letter from a landlord making an accusation of a violation of lease terms and copying his lawyer (via email). Of course, the landlord was wrong, but my response was simply to state that I was right and to INVITE the lawyer to call me if she disagreed with my interpretation. Invite is the key, and of course no response. Just call the bluff. Lawyers are overrated. I still love when people say, send a letter to your XYZ, and add a cc at the bottom with the name of a lawyer and the title Esq. after it. Stupid.

Anyway, back to you. Get a grip. Whoops, was that rude? Welcome to NY - avoid the cracks on the sidewalk because unless you actually fall, no one will help you walk.

The LL is in his right to do this. It sounds like he sent you a form letter. I wouldn't take it personally. A fiance is not the same as a wife.

Ok, the verdict is in. Spoke to an attorney, the building has no right to block delivery of mail. It does not matter whether the person living with me is a fiancee or a friend -- if she is there legally (she is), she can receive mail. It seems the reason why I got the letter is that the landlord confused me with a rent-controlled tenant, which I am not, but of which there are many in my building. It is trying to prevent any sort of rights of succession claim by my fiancee. However, since I am a market-rate tenant, this is irrelevant as the landlord can simply refuse to renew the lease (it is up in September).

By the way, the lawyer advised to me to skip the last month's rent and use the security deposit instead.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/18366-skipping-last-months-rent-when-they-have-your-security

the apt. is a rental why the big deal..just speak with the mailman and everything will be okay.

"By the way, the lawyer advised to me to skip the last month's rent and use the security deposit instead."

Read your lease carefully. Many of them stipulate that you absolutely cannot do this.

The rental controlled tenants have their rights but if you aren't one then you shouldn't be trying to create a problem for the landlord. You say you work on Wall Street but apparently you have no morals either.

The LL response makes sense. I was just going to say, "Welcome to New York" where manners are rare and the law stipulates that tenants have occupancy rights that effectively confer some ownership-like rights to them. LLs can be testy. But in some respects, it's understandable. Everyone likes to say, when the LL's bought the building, he understanding the RS/RC laws. But you know what? The rent laws were enacted at one time as a complete surprise to LLs. It is a bit socialist, but we all call the city home, so we should acknowledge it for what it is.

New York City can be a ridiculous place sometimes. If the law was clear about a timeline for refunding deposits, fewer management companies would play games and more tenants would pay for their last month. The lack of definition only benefits the bad actors.

'Read your lease carefully. Many of them stipulate that you absolutely cannot do this.'

My lease does too. However, seeing how unscruplous the landlord is, I will not sit on my hands either. The whole mail issue is a big deal to me for two reasons (i) principles of the rules, i.e. the landlord is usurping the authority which it does not have a (ii) immigration. My fiancee is here on a foreign visa. We have been and will be communicating with the USCIS. Yes, we have an immigration attorney and yes, he is supposed to be getting copies of everything the USCIS sends us. From my immigration days, howevr, I remember distinctly that the INS (USCIS' name at the time) sent some notices only to me. I do not want her to be the Babboo in an episode of Seinfeld whre the guy got sent back because he missed a letter in the mail.

When somebody tries to screw with me, intentionally or not, I fight. If the landlord is using rough tactics (for no obvious reason), he/she will get the same in return.

So far the mail has been arriving with no problem. Unless the LL takes othr steps, I will let this sit for now. As to wether or not to use the security for last months' rent, I will decide in August.

'Read your lease carefully. Many of them stipulate that you absolutely cannot do this.'

My lease does too. However, seeing how unscruplous the landlord is, I will not sit on my hands either. The whole mail issue is a big deal to me for two reasons (i) principles of the rules, i.e. the landlord is usurping the authority which it does not have a (ii) immigration. My fiancee is here on a foreign visa. We have been and will be communicating with the USCIS. Yes, we have an immigration attorney and yes, he is supposed to be getting copies of everything the USCIS sends us. From my immigration days, howevr, I remember distinctly that the INS (USCIS' name at the time) sent some notices only to me. I do not want her to be the Babboo in an episode of Seinfeld whre the guy got sent back because he missed a letter in the mail.

When somebody tries to screw with me, intentionally or not, I fight. If the landlord is using rough tactics (for no obvious reason), he/she will get the same in return.

So far the mail has been arriving with no problem. Unless the LL takes othr steps, I will let this sit for now. As to wether or not to use the security for last months' rent, I will decide in August.

'Read your lease carefully. Many of them stipulate that you absolutely cannot do this.'

My lease does too. However, seeing how unscruplous the landlord is, I will not sit on my hands either. The whole mail issue is a big deal to me for two reasons (i) principles of the rules, i.e. the landlord is usurping the authority which it does not have a (ii) immigration. My fiancee is here on a foreign visa. We have been and will be communicating with the USCIS. Yes, we have an immigration attorney and yes, he is supposed to be getting copies of everything the USCIS sends us. From my immigration days, howevr, I remember distinctly that the INS (USCIS' name at the time) sent some notices only to me. I do not want her to be the Babboo in an episode of Seinfeld whre the guy got sent back because he missed a letter in the mail.

When somebody tries to screw with me, intentionally or not, I fight. If the landlord is using rough tactics (for no obvious reason), he/she will get the same in return.

So far the mail has been arriving with no problem. Unless the LL takes othr steps, I will let this sit for now. As to wether or not to use the security for last months' rent, I will decide in August.

Dude, you need to mellow out. Your landlord's minions might be rude morons, but they can't mess with the mail. You are completely overreacting.

ukrguy, you are sensitive to the mail issue because your fiance is not a full time US resident--that is understandable. The LL is sensitive to US mail delivery because the housing court confers tenancy rights to any occupant that receives US mail at a NYC address for 30 days. If we didn't have such strong tenant rights in this city, LLs would not be so rude. They are battling to get all RS/RC tenants out of their buildings. Can we blame them?

Yes we can!

Of course we can. It's not like the buildings they own sneaked out at night, got drunk with their friends and went rent-stabilized at 5AM.
These owners bought knowing the rules.

maly, how do you justify the initial enactment of rent laws? Say you are a condo owner today. Who is to say that a new law isn't put in place tomorrow to steal your ownership rights and confer some of those rights to future tenants? Your justification isn't on principal. It's based on one long-term LL getting screwed, then selling to a new LL at a bargain price. That is not a valid justification for rent laws IMO.

What if a law is enacted requiring you to install a CO2 detector in your condo? Won't that diminish your profit & happiness potential?

What if a law is enacted prohibiting you from running a crackhouse out of your condo? Won't that diminish your profit & happiness potential?

The future holds such mystery and excitement!

alan, I'm all for "happiness, mystery and excitement", but regulating rent, the essence of economic value for property, is not the same as regulating its safe or legal use.

Is an attorney, an 'officer of the court' allowed to recommend that his client break the law? That sounds awfully sketchy to me.

"Is an attorney, an 'officer of the court' allowed to recommend that his client break the law? That sounds awfully sketchy to me"

Attorney probably didn't read the lease or didn't read it carefully. Bottom line - many landlords suck. They try and take you for everything they can and hope you don't know any better. Still, it's best to play by the rules, so that you have that as a defense if you ever need it.

Unfortunately this is one of the problems in the rental market. Not only do the people view their residency as temporary, but the landlords don't think of tenants as customers to keep happy. Ultimately, if you aren't in a home you own, you are subject to rational and irrational problems out of your control. Good luck.

i say again, disproportionate overreaction.

DaBulls...that's a perfect observation that I never heard before...LL's don't think of us as customers to keep happy.

Manhattan landlords do not have to behave as if the customer is always right. First of all, there are a lot less of them than renters. Second of all, the renters are for the most part very transient, a resource in ample supply and continually renewed, while the LL are few, set in their ways and not going anywhere. It's an oligopoly, they set the market and last year was the rare exception. That is the reason behind the rudeness and the idiocy, and unless something changes drastically in the rental market, it's pointless to fight them on manners.

It might be more true of Manhattan landlords, and it might be for the reasons you and others set out, but if you read online apartment complex reviews for any non-rent-regulated market across the country, including those with vast housing oversupply, you'll see the same thing: landlord/management takes forever to fix anything, if they fix it at all. And this happens even in markets where the standard is a 6- or 12-month lease that automatically rolls over to month-to-month -- meaning the tenants are always liable to leave on 30 days' notice. In areas where it's really cheap to move locally, unlike here.

ukrguy, "When somebody tries to screw with me, intentionally or not, I fight. If the landlord is using rough tactics (for no obvious reason), he/she will get the same in return."
And you call yourself non-litigious?
You sound like you attack at the PERCEIVED offense, whether real or not. Veeerrrrry macho.
Your LL was non unscrupols. He's within his rights. The whole thing is blown out of proportions — by you.
You've been on this story for months now on this site. Something is off.
I think you just might be a bad guy.

Why would you say that, Salut???  I think ukrguy is a very good person who only engages in questionable behavior when there is a threat, or a possibility of a threat, or the perception of a possibility of a threat, or if there is something that disagrees with him, or if money is involved.  Other than that, he is Mother Teresa.

"ukrguy
about 4 weeks ago
ignore this person
report abuse
I am currently searching for an apartment (no offers of help please). I am very anti-fee.
...
I have found the owner's name, so may simply work around the broker. That is my experience so far."

And now he'll hire "someone" to try and scare the landlord. "When somebody tries to screw with me, intentionally or not, I fight". So when someone UNINTENTIONALLY protects oneself from our Ukrainian guy, he FIGHTS! Or when someone unintentionally offends his royal sense of decorum, he FIGHTS!
Scary creature. Insecure and aggressive. Wall Street-shmallstreet.

"I have found the owner's name, so may simply work around the broker. That is my experience so far."
What was the end of that, I wonder.

No landlord defender here but you see why they are assholes because so many of their tenants are undeserving jerks. This guy isn't even a citizen, his fiance (not wife) doesn't even have a Green Card. So he should get an apartment, he should be able to violate the lease, he should find an apartment with a broker and then not pay a broker fee, he should fight with the landlord and not expect the landlord to fight back, he should ask dumb questions on streeteasy, he should get to move every year to get the free rent, he gets to work on Wall Street. Asshole.

And not pay last months rent so he can flee the country after he didn't want his immigration status questions. It isn't hard to wonder why landlords don't like to rent to non citizens or permanent residents.

I wonder if it was a real estate lawyer who said don't pay last months rent or if it was an immigration lawyer.

Djingell, you should move to Arizona. Maybe be a minuteman. Harangue every immigrant-looking person possible.

I believe ukrguy has been in the country for 20 years now and is a citizen.

I have been in US since 1991, always legally, never unemployed, always paid taxes. I am a permanent resident, commonly known as green card holder.

Graduated from two universities in US, have been working for the same company since 1998.

"When somebody tries to screw with me, intentionally or not, I fight. If the landlord is using rough tactics (for no obvious reason), he/she will get the same in return.
So far the mail has been arriving with no problem. Unless the LL takes "

ukrguy, you need to relax. Other than psyho behavior, landlords adverse actions are pretty much limited to what they can do in court. Don't get so worked up. It is a letter. If there is action, then get worked up. Some landlords (and others in business) love that a "threatening" letter, which by itself has no teeth, can get people to take action.

@PMG "ukrguy, you are sensitive to the mail issue because your fiance is not a full time US resident--that is understandable. The LL is sensitive to US mail delivery because the housing court confers tenancy rights to any occupant that receives US mail at a NYC address for 30 days. If we didn't have such strong tenant rights in this city, LLs would not be so rude. They are battling to get all RS/RC tenants out of their buildings. Can we blame them?"

PMG, interesting. I know that isn't applicable to this thread for multiple reasons. Though are you sure you are correct? I thought it was a longer period and the person had to have some direct blood or marriage relation.

"housing court confers tenancy rights to any occupant that receives US mail at a NYC address for 30 days"

... the closest thing to this that I've ever heard of, and only for rent-stabilized apartments, is that a landlord's acceptance of rent checks from an individual for three months in a row without protest or contractual agreement constitutes the start of a primary lease in that individual's name.

"As others said, you are entitled to have a roommate"

No you are not. If the landlord did not agree to a roommate, he has the right to evict anyone who's not on the lease, as well as you, for violating the terms of the lease.

Good thing your advice is free. You should get fined $10 every time you post something false. Streeteasy would be making out like bandits.

"As others said, you are entitled to have a roommate"

NYC Matt: 'No you are not. If the landlord did not agree to a roommate, he has the right to evict anyone who's not on the lease, as well as you, for violating the terms of the lease.'

This is from NYC Rent Guidelines Board (RBG): 'It is unlawful for a landlord to restrict occupancy of an apartment to the named tenant in the lease or to that tenant and immediate family. When the lease names only one tenant, that tenant may share the apartment with immediate family, one additional occupant and the occupant’s dependent children, provided that the tenant or the tenant’s spouse occupies the premises as their primary residence'.

http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/attygenguide.html#34

NYCMatt (and other pro-landlord possters on this thread): did you happen to notice the'and one additional occupant' in the paragraph above? Even though I do not post here frequently, I read this blog a lot. It is stiriking how much propensity the 'landlord wing' of the bloggers has to neglect the legally mandated tenant rights while at the same time promoting landlord interests. It was also interesting to note that when I raised the possibility of violating terms of the lease by using security as last month's rent, a flurry of posts reminded me of my contractual obligation. Yet somehow the RGB's guidelines that my attorney (more on the attorney part later) explained that this is actually a law and it was not up to the landlord to decide on this issue.

Some here commented on my other thread:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/20554-immigration-and-other-backgroud-check

This is from NYC RGB website: 'Landlords may not refuse to rent to, renew the lease of, or otherwise discriminate against, any person or group of persons because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status or familial status. In New York City, tenants are further protected against discrimination with respect to lawful occupation, sexual orientation, partnership status and immigration status.'

These kinds of issues and the deliberately one-sided comments from pro-landlord posters is why once in a while a tenant needs to check with an attorney as to what is legal and what is not. The $200-400 that an hour's consultation will cost is well worth the money in the long run. The irony is that for someone who spends every day of the workweek with an attorney it took me over a decade of living in Manhattan to come to this conclusion.

"This is from NYC RGB website: 'Landlords may not refuse to rent to, renew the lease of, or otherwise discriminate against, any person or group of persons because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status or familial status. In New York City, tenants are further protected against discrimination with respect to lawful occupation, sexual orientation, partnership status and immigration status.'"

Unless the apartment building has three or fewer units, OR if the landlord also resides in the building.

'Unless the apartment building has three or fewer units, OR if the landlord also resides in the building.'

If this were indeed the case why would not RGB mention this? Can you produce any verifiable reference? sounds like another lie.

It's in the New York Real Estate manual I studied when I got my license. You would do well to study it too!

ukrguy, you might as well quote the Food and Drug Administration. In your first post you said you were a market rate tenant. Therefore, the Rent Guidelines Board has no applicability to you. RGB has to do with rents that are under stabilization or rent control.

As to if you can have a roommate or not, I suspect you can, as it is normal, especially if that person has a relationship with you. But I don't know the law on this or the language of your actual lease. I'd risk it though, because anything to the contrary seems a bit berzerk and what landlord is going to take you to court on something so normal even if the lease is to the contrary, if you haven't presented yourself as a nuissance in any manner.
I'm not a real estate attorney, if you want a real answer I guess you can ask one, though again, personally I wouldn't waste the money at this stage because it's hard to imagine that having a fiance living in your apartment is truly problematic in any fashion. So just relax already.

NYCMatt, you have a real estate license? And you are a member of how many unions? You are streeteasy's true jack of all trades and master of absolutely none.

"It's in the New York Real Estate manual I studied when I got my license."

Matt, I believe this is the very funniest sentence you've ever posted on SE ... and there've been some doozies!

But that aside, it's also ironic because you're always promoting Gay, and and trying to recruit people to join The Gays, and sniveling and whining and carping and whinging about "breeders", as you put it, ruining whole neighborhoods -- while the right to a roommate was codified almost entirely to benefit The Gays, and not intrude on privacy so much as to require domestic partnership.

matt has crossed-over to "mainstream" - the world is about to end.

Wow, what happened to ukrguy?

Also, salut - "By the way, unless you buy, your current LL will have to give you references for your next one. "
I've rarely personally had this or seen this happen. Anyone else agree or disagree?