Break lease penalty

Check out your current lease and see what it says about lease reassignment and early termination. Beyond that, you don't have any recourse.

forgot to add that nowhere on the lease states "2 month rent penalty", it did say no sublease. could they ask for something I didn't actually see and agree when I signed the lease or is it a unwritten norm in NYC?

You really need to examine your lease contract. Since you already have an attorney for your purchase have her/him look at it. Now if you can't get anywhere with the management company your last resort would be to speak with the owner. You really have nothing to lose. I mean if you just walk out they legally they can go after you and it may ultimately affect your credit so it may not be worth it. You may just have to bite the bullet on this one. Keep in mine Feb is not an easy time to rent an apt no matter how the market conditions are so I can understand their stance. Good luck and hopefully you can work something out with the owner but it's definitely going to be a major challenge for you. The other alternative is to try to delay closing on your apt you haven't already gone to closing that is.

thanks northsider and spunky. Now delay closing till august is really not an option for me, neither the seller, i'll speak to the management company and try to work something out. What i don't understand is how they come up with the number for penalty and hold me responsible without stating that on the lease. They might well ask for 3 months, half a year just like they ask for 2 months. I guess they don't put these numbers on the lease as that would scare a lot of ppl away in the first place, at least I would definitely have thought harder when I renewed my lease.

Actually 2 month penalty may be very generous on their part depending on what the lease state a renter is usually obligated for the full term. If they just charge you two months then get it in writing so you are not sued for the rest of the lease term. For your protection I would recommend your lawyer get involved in this one because it sounds like this can get messy.

How much is your security deposit in terms of months of rent?

The law in Manhattan (NY County) is unclear on whether landlord has duty to find a new tenant once you leave, or whether she can sit on the vacant apartment and hold you to the remaining months.

Review your lease. If the "2 months policy" is not in the lease, you are not bound by it and you should treat it as simply a starting point in your negotiation with the landlord/manager.

the security deposit is 1 month rent.

The management staff told me i could go 2 routes: 1, cough up 2 month rents and leave; 2, leave without paying the penalty, under this circumstance, they would forfeit the security deposit and bill me for whatever cost is entailed before they bring in the next tenant, they said it is gonna cost more than 2 month rents, e.g. painting, fixing things, vacant-day rents, so much so i would be better off giving them 2 month rents. The staff are very rude, refusing to listening and abruptly cutting conversations. I wonder if there are any law/regulations that protect tenant's rights, when they have a legit reason to move like first home buyers, etc?

They sound really shady to me. Are they a big management company or is this a small building? You shouldn't have to pay ANY cancellation fee if it doesn't spell it out in your lease. NYC courts are very tenant friendly. What are they going to go after you in court? Don't give them the deposit, demand it back after 60 days or whatever with an itemized receipt of all damages. Take pictures of the apartment before you leave as well. Don't allow them to screw you.

NeedHelp, no offense but you seem very naive and you may be in over your head.

For example, you believe that buying a home while you are currently bound by a lease is a "legit reason" to break your lease without penalty.

With "reasoning" like that, your best bet may be to pay up and get out.

Then again, maybe you're crazy to be listening to a pseudonymous internet poster called Slippery Pete.

I think the two month "penalty" is reasonable. You signed a lease that obligated you to pay rent through August and under the lease, you don't have a right to sublease or to assign the lease. It sounds as if the management company is releasing you from the obligation to pay rent for the full term of the lease in exchange for two additional months of rent after the date when you break the lease. There is no reason this provision has to be in the lease because it is not a part of the lease - it the the landlord's terms for allowing you out of the lease. Considering the uncertainty of the landlord's duty to mitigate and the fact that many landlords would take the position that you are obligated to pay for the entire remaining term of the lease, I don't think the management company is treating you unfairly.

Be careful that whatever you choose isn't going to effect your credit rating at a time that you most need it to be at its highest.

NeedHelp what would happen if you decided to rent out your apt for a year. Now you go through the advertising, brokering , qualification, etc process. Which can take up two months even during the best season which is spring and summertime. Now you finally get a tenant to rent your place and help you out with the monthly mortgage payments. Then a few months later tenant purchases place for themselves, leaves the keys in the dead of the winter, and tells you bye bye. I'm sure NYC is tenant friendly but they are also friendly to people who have legitimate signed contracts as well.And I'm equally sure that lawyers bill lots of money for their time

Yes, what slippery pete says is true--you don't seem to realize that you are contractually obligated to pay for the duration of your lease. Expecting you to adhere to the terms and conditions of the legal contract you signed is not "screwing you" nor is it "shady" (quoteations in response to Northsider's comments). It is not incumbent upon them to spell out a 2 month penalty in your contract--the contract states you are stuck til the end of the lease. They are offering you a better (though not ideal) alternative to that which you signed and legally committed yourself to. They are not your parents and are not obligated to allow you to break your legal contract without penalty because you deem your reason for doing so is "legit". Having said all that, good luck.

NeedHelp: pay attention, this is IMPORTANT.

I forgot to mention that you MAY have the right to sublease your apartment, regardless of what landlord says. If landlord unreasonably withholds consent to your request to sublease, you MAY have the right to be released from your lease.

Please read New York's Real Property Law 226-b, or hire an attorney and tell her to read it.

I wish I could help more but I cannot give legal advice.

Go with god, my child.

okay slipperypete needhelp has nothing to do all day and night but to read NY real property law, look for qualified replacement tenants in the dead of the winter and go back and forth with the landlord and their attorneys. Slipperypete you must be a freaking nightmare to any landlord and I am quite confident that you have both low credit ratings as well as being on the blacklist of who not to rent an apt to handbook. Yuck

my rental is with a big management company and i inquired about breaking our lease due to buying a place. they said that we need to have a termination clause added to our lease when we renewed it otherwise we owe the whole remaining lease. With the termination clause we must give 60 days notice and we owe 2 months rent as the penalty, and you cannot use the security deposit as part of it.

Thanks for the comedy, spunky. Last I checked I had a credit score over 800 and have been renting from the same landlord for 7 years without incident. Obviously NeedHelp has the time to look for subtenants because he specifically stated that he is willing to find one. Obviously NeedHelp is willing to do some legwork to get out from his lease - he plainly said so. Read his original post, genius.

"Yuck"

Actually, a landlord does have a duty to mitigate any damages occurred due to a breach of contractual obligation. Unfortunately for you, this is generally a fairly rotten time for rentals, and worse this year than the past few. Spunky, if someone is able to find a qualified subtenant, I hardly see how that would be a freaking nightmare to the landlord (especially now, when the landlord will probably not get the same rent as he/she would in August).

For those of you who may encounter such a situation in the near term, I have in the past requested a month to month lease upon renewal when I knew I was close to purchasing. This has its own inherent dangers, but also offers flexibility. Some landlords will agree, others won't.

Aboutready - not sure of basis for your conclusion that landlord has duty to mitigate damages in NY County. Please share, maybe I can learn something.

Far as I know, no App.Div. decision on point, and lower court decisions are conflicting. Brooklyn (second dept) is different matter.

Aboutready - I'm with the slippery one on this issue. Why do you think landlord has duty to mitigate damages flowing from tenant's breach?

Landlord has no obligation to allow you out of your lease Needhelp. Not to put too sharp of a point on this but when you were considering buying a new place you should have taken into account that you are tied into a rental until August and either negotiated a closing that bookended your existing lease -- or budgeted for the seven month overhang of the rental.

Now for a pragmatic solution to your problem -- your lease may preclude you from subletting but it is very difficult to enforce.

Find a subtenant who wants seven month space and make a deal. Don't tell management you are vacating but rather having a roomate move in and their will be a shuffle in furniture. They might figure out your game but don't have a say in screening your "roomate".

By the time they are in a position to take legal action your lease, and the corresponding sublease, will have run out.

realestatejunkie the only problem that can come up if the subtenant decides not to vacate the premises when the lease expires? Unlikely to happen but the possibility is always there.

Needhelp - please ignore realestatejunkie's terrible advice.

Junkie - you claim landlord has no obligation "to allow you out of your lease" but you are wrong. The answer, as I and SlippyPete have said -- is that the law is unclear in Manhattn. You also give ridiculous advice to illegal sublet. This could all backfire when landlord sues and not only wins but gets court to award him his legal fees. Then Needhelp is screwed.

Needhelp - as SP suggested - look at New York's Real Property Law 226-b - proper procedure for subletting regardless of whether landlord consents or not.

We claimed constructive eviction (a number of years ago, it's true) due to a landlord's failure to install working locks for the doors of our apartment building in Hell's Kitchen (three robberies in two months). We were sued for the remainder of the lease term (16 months of rent, plus costs). We won. Our answer to the complaint included the mitigation issue. My husband's an attorney, and I used to be a paralegal who sometimes did real estate law. I'm fairly certain mitigation of damages is a standard common law requirement in contract law, but I'll ask him. You say no appellate division decisions, but what about the lower courts, housing and supreme?

I rented with a big management company and had to pay a penalty to break a lease to move to a different apartment in the building. I negotiated down to 6 weeks rent (i broke the lease 3 months early) which they seemed to think was a big concession on their part.

Boutready - thanks for sharing. That is a fascinating little story! Very interesting.
Mitigation of damages is in the common law in general. But landlord-tenant is very different. Landlord has no duty with commercial tenants in NY - that much is clear as highest court has decided.
With residential landlord, law is unclear as I keep saying. As SP said somewhere above, lower court decisions are in conflict.
Obviously, always assert mitigation in your answer -- but it doesn't guarantee squat!

If there are no written, codified regulations within the real property laws then common law should prevail. Commercial leases are much more complex, and there is generally not the presumption in favor of the tenant as there is in residential leasing. Commercial tenants are presumed to have far more negotiating power when it comes to the terms of the lease (a commercial lease without subletting provisions, for example?) Residential tenants are usually given a lease and told to sign it or leave. When we signed the lease for our current property I noticed that it contained several provisions that were against public policy. My husband told me to go ahead and sign, they couldn't be enforced anyway. If we had asked for a lease with only legal provisions, they wouldn't have rented to us.

There is a reasonable time granted to the landlord (which may very well be a couple of months) to paint, etc., market and relet any space. I don't think the case law ambiguities would indicate that mitigation isn't generally required, but rather what constitutes reasonable mitigation. But, I am no attorney, and I haven't read recent case law so I must defer.

In this case, any effort to reduce the two months requested by the management would likely be fruitless. One month would be the absolute minimum, most likely, and then in an active market.

LLL, that seems rather miserly of the management company. Landlords are usually fairly lenient when tenants are moving within a property, assuming they've been in the unit a couple of years and the unit would be due repainting, etc., anyway.

Happy weekend.

Aboutready - respectfully, you are mistaken. The conflicting lower court decisions on residential landlord's duty to mitigate that I and another poster have repeatedly mentioned ARE THE COMMON LAW. There is no OTHER common law that would "prevail," as you say. It is not a matter of "case law ambiguities."
Sorry to get a little antagonistic but seems like no one is listening. I appreciate your intention to give advice to Needhelp but it is bad advice because it is mistaken.

Mel is right. On legal questions, don't guess answers or speculate based on what you've heard. Legal questions should be answered by lawyers, just as medical diagnoses should be made by a doctor--not your Aunt Tillie. A little knowledge of the law is a dangerous and bad thing.

NeedHelp - If the two months penalty is really going to matter to you and you are willing to find a renter, considering subletting your new apartment out for six months, assuming a condo or you have sublet rights. Not something I would do as the last thing you want is to have an entrenched tenant in your new apartment if things go wrong, but something to consider. Personally, I think you're better off paying the two months penalty and moving on, lesson learned, because if it's not stated in your lease, you're likely to get sued for the remaining months of the lease if you try to play games with illegal sublets, etc.

Is Mel an attorney? Or Kylewest? The husband (an attorney, btw) just told me that under normal circumstances, there is absolutely an obligation for a landlord to mitigate damages (he is phi beta kappa, order of the coif, top ten law firm for his first ten years, now international law firm with 1600 attorneys). I'm not referring to Uncle Willie here, and I worked in real estate law (in NYC) for a couple of years, and in the law in general for 15 years. Sorry, I'm feeling a bit antagonistic. There is not a little knowledge of the law in this household, but rather an overabundance.

My advice to Needhelp doesn't seem like it should be your concern at all, since I freely said that I didn't think that Needhelp had any recourse regardless, two months seems reasonable to me in this market (although you seem to ignore that aspect of my post).

Yes, my post is on landlord obligations generally. Most tenants never visit an attorney, with good reason because they are so expensive. I am not an attorney, so I can't give legal advice, but anyone who has a concern that would warrant it, should absolutely seek the advice of an attorney (especially if you have a friend who is one who can possibly just write a letter, it may make the world of difference).

Also, Mel, I didn't say that any other common law would prevail, I said that regulatory law would previal. Common law prevails until law is enacted to modify it. Can you provide the regulatory cites for the modifications to the common law provisions? It's not an OTHER common law, it becomes a different law altogether if modified my an elected body.

Aboutready - It is painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Your post about how your husband was order of the coif and is now at an "international law firm with 1600 attorneys" is, by far, the most pathetic post I have read on the entire streeteasy message boards.

Your blather about "regulatory law" and "the regulatory cites for the modifications to the common law provisions" actually made me laugh, so for that I thank you.

I posted on this thread to try to give NeedHelp a hand, based on the current state of the law in NY County. You are making it difficult or impossible for me to help this person. NeedHelp - Best of luck with aboutready's "overabundance" of legal knowledge.

I am done here. You may have the last word if you wish. Ciao

Mel, the info I posted was absolutely honest. I've got to wonder why you feel the need to get so personal about such a simple issue? I was merely responding to Kylewest's comments about a lack of legal knowledge.

Actually, Mel, I don't think that our advice to NeedHelp is really any different. Which, once again, makes me wonder at your vehemence. Clearly, Mel, you have little to no knowledge of the law. I don't blather. I myself have worked for the DOJ (Exxon Valdez case) and three top tier law firms, in many areas of the law, including contract. Obviously if NeedHelp truly needs legal help, he or she should seek the advice of an attorney, not Mel or Aboutready.

I'm glad you laughed. I'm not laughing at your post. I'm a bit worried for you. Misdirected anger isn't healthy.

I don't really care who has the last word. Chill.

Ciao yourself.

There's only one way to settle this. Pistols at dawn.

I think there is one other way to settle this: read 29 Holding Corp. v. Diaz, 3 misc.3d 808.

aboutready said: "under normal circumstances, there is absolutely an obligation for a landlord to mitigate damages."

Mel said: "With residential landlord, law is unclear as I keep saying. As SP said somewhere above, lower court decisions are in conflict."

29 Holding Corp. gives a thorough review of the conflicting decisions on whether a residential landlord has a duty to mitigate damages. In the case, Judge Victor declined to adhere to a parallel court's ruling in Whitehouse Estates v. Post, which held that landlord had no duty to mitigate. The judge instead held that the refusal to impose such a duty is "unconscionable and violative of public policy."

So, Mel is absolutely correct - the law in the judicial region that includes Manhattan is unclear on this issue and there are many conflicting decisions.

Boasting about dubious qualifications doesn't come off well at all. Plus you have lost this argument by a mile.

Maybe we can focus on answering questions and leave the bad legal advice to Judge Judy?

Did you know that Judge Judy was ranked 13th in a Forbes richest women list? She worth well over $100M. Who knew?

HOLY SMOKES! That is a lot of green!

And thank you, Slippery Pete.

Well, sp, aren't you citing a case that says that the refusal to impose such a duty is violative of public policy? People, the courts don'ts always get it right. The case law may be conflicted, but the LAW that is still on the books is still the law that is still on the books. That's why many, many cases get overturned (particularly at the lower levels). It doesn't mean that the law, common or otherwise, isn't still extant, and that if you have the inclination, means, and attorney you can't overcome bad precedent, or unclear precedent. It doesn't mean, obviously, you'll necessarily always win, because where there is conflicting case law a court can do it's level best to interpret your circumstances the way it wishes.

Oh, and give me a break about the "dubious qualifications". I was only responding to the "legal questions should be answered by lawyers, not aunt tillie..." By the by, I'm not boasting in the slightest. Facts are facts, and if an IB type came on board and said, hey, this is what is happening in the market, no one would say, gee, boasting about dubious qualifications (they might take great exception with any conclusions, but generally not with credentials). Judge Judy is far more strident than I could ever dream of being, but, hey, maybe I should take notes.

Oh my goodness -----------Sheeeeeeeee's back.

Can someone please summarize to me now in English the conclusion of the legal debate? I don't care who won, I just want to know what I need to know about landlords and breaking leases.

aifamm if you are considering renting your unit out and are not familiar with the intricacies. I can't emphasize to you more strongly that it is critical for you to meet with a lawyer and have her/him give you the lease agreement to present to a prospective tenant. Your lawyer should review that lease agreement in detail as well.Make sure your lawyer is very familiar with Manhattan tenant/landlord rights.
Keep in mind your building will have their own set of paperwork for you and your prospective tenant to fill out as well.It's worth the few hundred extra to meet with a lawyer familar with this area vs getting advice for free on this board.

Sure, aifamm. The legal debate was over before it began. Here it is in plain English:

The question we have been arguing about is: whether, when a tenant breaks a residential lease before the end of the lease term, the landlord has a duty to try to find a new tenant, or whether the landlord can simply sit on a vacant apartment and continue to charge the tenant rent even after he/she has left.

The answer is that in Manhattan and the judicial region that contains Manhattan, the law is unclear. Different courts have different answers - some say landlord must at least try to find a new tenant; others say landlord can absolutely sit on the vacant apartment and demand tenant's monthly rent.

Bottom line: no way to know how a Manhattan court will decide this issue in advance! Tenant may win; tenant may lose! I know that's not the answer you want to hear but that is the CORRECT answer, despite the contrary and nonsensical insistence of some people.

aboutready keeps digging her hole deeper n' deeper. Sweety, just give up already. Tough to admit that you and order of the coif hubby have no clue, but still better than embarassing yourself again and again!

Mel I agree with you but your wasting your time arguing with her.Just try to ignore her.

spunky, if you ignore her than we don't get to enjoy any of this. Mel, I would prefer you egg her on a bit more. This is better than the OC

sorry, that was supposed to be my inside voice

California...CALIFORNIAAAAAA!

I reconsidering this aboutready does bring up a good point. I have to agree with her. Aboutready can you please elaborate on why Mel is off the target on this one. Your legal argument does make more sense than his but I need some clarification on why it does.

Mel, so is the landlord in his right to set the break lease penalty at 2 months? Is the renter still then obligated to pay the remainder of the lease if no new renter is found?

airfamm all leases are not the same. Read your lease. It's a freaking contract. Do you really want to challenge whether the contract is enforceable. Do you really have the time and money to debate this issue in a courtroom. BTW if a tenant ends up in court to fight a landlord it goes on their record and can show up as part of a background check that landlords perform. It becomes public information.

Aifamm: as someone said above - review lease. If 2 month penalty is not in lease, tenant is not bound by it - it is only a starting point in negotiation with landlord.

As for your second question - are you asking what happens if landlord tries but fails to find new tenant for residential unit? Good question. Don't hear about this issue too much because usually pretty simple to find new renter in residential context. Renter would likely be obligated to pay remainder of lease in that situation. Seems fair to me - no?

BTW Why would a landlord rent to someone who has on his record that he/she has been in tenant court? Just curious.

I see. Thanks. Do you want to send me an ironclad lease spunky?

Don't hear about this issue too much because usually pretty simple to find new renter in residential context.--Mel

See how easy it is to find a new renter in Dec or January. What if layout of unit is crappy or the living room window faces your neighbors bathroom .Making a blanket statement that's it's easy finding a new tenant is not as simple as it may appear to be.it really depends on a lot of variables.

I think you need an ironclad tenant. That's the one with a 750 or better credit score, good references, t, Income that meets stringent requirements 45 time monthly, stable employment background etc. Contracts are as strong as the people that sign them. Just my opinion of course.

Good points, spunky. Good to get landlord's perspective on this. If landlord makes Good-Faith effort to mitigate but cannot mitigate, landlord has done all he can. Tenant likely to get stuck holding the bill, AS HE SHOULD BE.

Mel not sure what you just said but I agree with you none the less.

Likewise!

Great minds do think alike

Probably no chance at catching up, but what are the odds this thread could exceed malraux's now legendary thread (legendary in his mind) in number of posts?

Here's to trying...

Hey spunky, the law exists on several levels. Usually, case law follows codified and/or public policy law fairly closely. In New York, it still definitely is the law on the books that a landlord in a residential situation needs to mitigate damages. Case law can get very tricky, very quickly. You can, for example, have a few years where leasing is very difficult so landlords will argue in court that they had no positive duty to lease the vacated property because other units (that they hekd) were also vacant. They might very well win. Many cases that have been litigated are not about the absolute duty, but what rather constitutes a reasonable compliance with that duty. In a very weak rental market, a tenant may very well own the remainder of the lease.

Hey, we had a lawsuit record, but it certainly wasn't our fault, and we had ABSOLUTELY no problems renting with one of the largest landlords in NYC.

Thanks aboutready I had a feeling Mel was off on this one.

Spunky, you DO enjoy stirring it up, don't you, luv?

I learned it from the juiceman he's my mentor.

Spunky you sly fox! Sweetie, spunky was provoking you. It amazes me you didn't figure that one out. But why am I surprised?

I thought aboutready had eaten enough crow to quietly slink bank to the depths from whence she came. Rumor has it that the Order of the Coif struck her husband's name from its rolls.

Honestly, I didn't think it could get better than her nonsensical opinion that the common law is "still extant." But, to her credit, she has surpassed even her own record-setting cluelessness with her latest gem about case law following "codified and/or public policy law fairly closely." BRILLIANT! Then, she preaches: "In New York, it still definitely is the law on the books that a landlord in a residential situation needs to mitigate damages."

Hmmm...I thought it had already been demonstrated (with actual evidence, i.e. a judge's decision) that this premise is entirely false. I guess aboutready knows more than a long list of judges who have decided that landlord does NOT have duty to mitigate. Aboutready appears to believe that "the law on the books" concerning duty to mitigate is somehow different from the common law, i.e. the collective body of judicial decisions. If this is what she thinks, she is, as usual, dead wrong. Did you even READ the decision SlipperyPete cited that discusses 100 YEARS of history on this topic?

Can be fun to beat a dead horse but it does grow tiresome, yes? As I said earlier, "Different courts have different answers - some say landlord must at least try to find a new tenant; others say landlord can absolutely sit on the vacant apartment and demand tenant's monthly rent. Bottom line: no way to know how a Manhattan court will decide this issue in advance! Tenant may win; tenant may lose! I know that's not the answer you want to hear but that is the CORRECT answer, despite the contrary and nonsensical insistence of some people." Aboutready is giving bad, inaccurate advice to people who may foolishly rely on it.

The bottom line: aboutready, what do you know about landlord's duty to mitigate damages that the Appellate Term in NY County does not know?

What about the case that Slippery Pete cites, that the lower court's decision is vioalitive of public policy? That's also case law, you silly jerk. Mel, you doth protest too much. This personal attack seems absolutely excessive. As I have always said, we are only here to present ideas and opinions, we are not here as experts (or else we'd be charging). You need some relaxation drugs, in a big way.

By the way, I agree with you that lower courts are giving inconsistent advice. Do I think that if you have a few thousand dollars at your disposal you'll get the same advice? Absolutely not. Our legal system often regards people with contacts, and money, and good free legal advice (which we had when we broke our NY lease 14 months early).

I agree with aboutready she makes some good points Mel.

Mel, I'm not your "sweetie" nor will I ever be. How f'ing rude.

I agree aboutready that was, demeaning, chauvinistic and uncalled for.

As well as totally inappropriate.

I think spunky is right Mel, you may have taken this a bit too far.

How could you refer to a female as "sweetie". Mel do you refer to females as toots as well. You really need to explain yourself on this one. Hilary Clinton would even find that offensive.

Spunky and Juiceman - You guys are too much!

Aboutready - your opinions don't make any sense and you should not be holding yourself out as someone who has any understanding of this area of law (or the law in general), because you clearly do not. That's really what confounds me. I have no doubt that when it comes to collating, bates stamping documents, or making copies of legal briefs, you are a top notch paralegal, toots.

But to say (as you do) that "Lower courts are giving inconsistent advice" is just plain nonsense. Courts don't give advice, they decide controversies and these decisions become law. Also makes no sense to then say, "Do I think that if you have a few thousand dollars at your disposal you'll get the same advice? Absolutely not." Again, courts don't give advice. Even more significantly, many of these cases were decided using top notch and very expensive attorneys who specialize in landlord-tenant law.

You still do not accept the inarguable FACT that, as I have said trillions of times, the law is unclear, different courts have decided the issue differently and conflictingly, and until we get an appeals court to decide it, the correct, and only, answer to the question of whether residential landlord has duty to mitigate is: IT DEPENDS. Okay, honeybunny?

Wow! Mel well said. I have to admit Mel does make a lot of sense here. It appears from his response that most of your understanding about law comes from your paralegal work in a law firm. Is there true, Aboutready? I know of a secretary that was very smart and she did work in a law firm. Mel is sort of intimating that you might of been a secretary not sure if that's the case or not. I still think it's inappropriate that he refers you as toots.

That must really burn

Oh Mel, are you an attorney? I worked at an associate level for over eight years. Please, I had people collating for me. A paralegal can be anything from a glorified gopher to someone who works with expert witnesses to determine damage methodology. I had the privilege of working in the field in Seattle for four years, where a great deal of responsibility can be given to top paralegals. When I returned for another however many years in NYC, I had the experience and credibility to continue. I recently suggested to my husband that given the additional discovery he had obtained in a case involving one of the top companies in America he should file a supplemental motion for summary judgment. He did, and he won. I won't mention MY credentials generally, because SP wouldn't like it.

I never said that the courts weren't consistent. I said that they CAN BE WRONG. That's why decisions have legal history. THEY CAN BE OVERTURNED, DISTINGUISHED, ETC. Just because you have inconsistent case law doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist.

Are you, by any chance, being sued?

Okay, asshole?

You know something? I don't go on here for things like this. I'm pretty sure NeedHelp has given up on this post, and I can only concur. If he hasn't and he's still watching with some sort of interest in this specious argument, well, I'm spent.

aboutready wow just when I thought Mel had you beat you proved him dead wrong. Mel are you in fact being sued for legal malpractice. Not sure if aboutready meant that but that's how I interpreted it.

Spunky - I'm not sure what aboutready meant either, but I have never been sued, and am not now being sued, for anything.

Aboutready - I don't care if you are "spent" or not. Only thing I care about is giving a solid answer to a legitimate question. On other hand, only thing you care about is insisting you are right without a shred of evidence in your favor, and despite a mountain of evidence against you. When I can educate people, I will do so. When I don't know anything about a certain area (and there are many such areas), I don't pretend that I do.

Let's go to the tape...

Aboutready: "Actually, a landlord does have a duty to mitigate any damages occurred due to a breach of contractual obligation."

Aboutready: "I don't think the case law ambiguities would indicate that mitigation isn't generally required..."

Aboutready: "there is absolutely an obligation for a landlord to mitigate damages."

Aboutready: "I never said that the courts weren't consistent...Just because you have inconsistent case law doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist."

Aside from penchant for double negatives, you again have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are a danger to yourself and other streeteasy cruisers. Now you are pretending that what you said is not in conflict with the law. But it is.

Teaching moment: Because courts make law, when the courts are in conflict over a common law (non-statutory) doctrine such as residential landlord's mitigation of damages, there is no "right" law or "wrong" law. There is only what the courts say (the common law), even when courts are in conflict.

I think the key to our "disagreement" is that you think there is a law somewhere, say, New York Business Law Section 1432-b or something, that specifically states "Residential landlord has duty to mitigate damages." But this is not the case at all. There is no relevant statute (according to the courts themselves), only the conflicting decisions (common law).

So, when you say "Just because you have inconsistent case law doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist" -this statement is LITERALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE. The law concerning landlord's duty does exist - it is embodied in the conflicting decisions of parallel courts. There is no OTHER law that "exists" on this subject in NY. Do you understand?

Despite our back and forth, after all of this effort I would people to walk away from this thread with an understanding of this topic and WHY it is that the ONLY answer to question of whether landlord has duty to mitigate is: "We don't know - depends on the court, the county, the judge, etc. Could go either way."

P.S. I do solemnly swear to conudct myself as the gentleman I am in all other streeteasy threads in which aboutready does not repeatedly insist on giving advice to people in need based on totally false legal premises.

wow jes' when I thought Mel was down for the count he comes back and destroys aboutready. aboutready are you going to stand for this? i certainly wouldn't.

Aboutready should refrain from giving legal advice which is what aboutready's posts amount to. It is illegal. I don't care how long you have been a paralegal or how many of your ideas attorneys have been impressed by. You aren't an attorney, nor are you licensed to practice law in NY. Stop it.

Just reviewed all of aboutready's posts. Most of them amount to foolish insistence on general notion that law is clear that residential landlord has duty to mitigate. In her defense, this is not legal advice - just false description of the general state of the law.

However, a few of her posts are arguably APPLYING her erroneous beliefs to the situation at hand. This is what she should steer clear of. Bad enough that the advice is dead wrong and that she has proven time and again that she has no clue how the common law works, thinks courts give "advice", thinks the common law can be "wrong" etc. etc. etc. Best not to compound the damage!

By the way, in new york law journal today there is front page note on a paralegal who represented himself as an attorney, was hired as an associate at big firm, and was later discovered! 5 years probation! Of course, aboutready never represented herself as an attorney, so this does not apply to her. Just pointing it out. Kylewest is right though - illegal to give legal advice even if you are not pretending to be lawyer.

aboutready there appears to be a very strong opinion from Mel and kylewest that you may be breaking the law by giving legal advice when in fact you are not or never have been a lawyer. Is this true?

LOL! Spunky - in a valiant effort to throw gas on the fire, you have made a serious allegation that requires me to put the fun and games on pause.

Kylewest is entitled to his opinion, but I am not saying aboutready broke any laws. I do think she should steer clear of this area, but (unpause) mostly because she has no idea what she is saying and a freshman poli-sci major has a better grasp on our judicial system than she does.

I think a Mel vs. kylewest lawyer-off would be interesting. Sort of like celebrity death match with large books, pencils, and bill sheets in 1/8 hour increments. aboutready could help by holding the spit bucket and filling up the water bottles.

I'd put my money on Mel. He's much more talented in the art of wearing his opponents down. Nothing against kylewest but in a debate Mel would chew him up and spit him out. Just my opinion of course.

I'll take that bet spunky. kylewest is a streeteasy veteran with poise, polish, and pizzazz. No way he loses to Mel. Now we just have to find something they disagree on.

Sorry to disappoint you gentlelmen, but if kylewest and I were to disagree on something, it would be done respectfully and professionally, I'm sure. By the way, agree that he has poised, polished, pizzazzy and even plucky.

In fact, scroll up and look at my first four posts - they are all respectful toward aboutready - one post is even complimentary. Only after she insisted on stating as fact that "landlord absolutely has duty to mitigate", and misleading the audience with her strange ideas about the law, did I bare the claws.

kylewest may have poise, polish and probably his presence is a few notches above Mel. Sorry Mel but I don't know too many Mel's that are good looking. Mel on the other hand, has the drive, persistence and the competitive spirit to win in any argument against kylewest.
It appears to me that kylewest believes aboutready has been giving advice which he states is illegal. Mel disagrees with kylewest by stating that "kylewest is entitled to his opinion" but aboutready has done nothing that he deems as illegal. There appears to be a disagreement about what is legal and what is illegal. I have to side with Mel on this one. Where do you stand kylewest?

Mel isn't my real name, so no offense is taken. But I agree - I can't think of a single good looking Mel...Wait - there's Mel Gibson I guess. But he's bonkers.

One day we really should all sit down and have coffee together.

What I'll take away from this richly entertaining thread that has been hopelessly polluted with advice worthy of monkeys piecing together a shredded Black's Law Dictionary is the very insightful offering of aboutready: "Usually, case law follows codified and/or public policy law fairly closely." That ought to really help a lot of people. It's brilliant. Runner up: "I didn't say that any other common law would prevail, I said that regulatory law would previal." Ah. It makes it all so clear. Thanks to this non-legal non-advice, I'm sure Needhelp knows exactly what to do now.

I have never been called 'plucky' before. I like that. I'm plucky!

Did kylewest refer to Mel's legal advice not even worthy of monkeys? Juiceman where is the polish and poise here.

One thing for damn sure is that I don't understand a word Mel or kylewest says but it really seems like they know what they are talking about.

Oh, spunky, stop. Mel is terrific. He has far more patience than I do to actually explain what makes bullsh-t bullsh-t.

I think kylewest was talking about monkeys polluting a law dictionary with some type of codified advice. I am going to have to print kylewest's last post and bring it to a couple of lawyers to try to figure out what what he wrote. I'll get back to you with their interpretation. BTW this may take them a few days so please be patient.

By the way, I just want to thank kylewest for weighing in and corroborating what I've been saying all along - namely that aboutready's advice is a danger to herself and others.

What I said from the begining is not JUST that she was wrong but, more importantly, that the things she was saying made no sense at all and could ONLY have been written by someone who literally has zero understanding of the law. That's fine as long as you're not holding yourself out as someone who has "an overabundance of legal knowledge."

I don't have anything against paralegals. Many are invaluable. But I am shocked that aboutready is a successful paralegal (I will take her at her word on this one) because again, the things she said show absolutely no understanding of how the law works. That's why kylewest said reading her posts was like monkeys cobbling together scraps from a law dictionary, a wonderful image with which I fully agree.

Did Juiceman just call spunky a monkey?

Update: an appeals court just decided that a landlord does NOT have any duty to mitigate damages on a residential lease. So she can sit on a vacant apartment and hold a tenant who has vacated the apartment to her monthly rent.
Just providing this update for those who care.

I think the "two months penalty" was maybe an informal statement of opinion. I just broke a lease, moving out only 6 months into a new two-year lease. The "penalty" under a standard lease is that you pay the remainder of rent due under the lease. In practice, you will never end up paying 18 months' rent because in New York the landlord will find another tenant. The only question is how long it takes. In my case a new tenant took over three months after I moved out, so my "penalty" was two months and 10 days' rent (I had paid for the month in which I left). The security deposit is a completely separate issue. You are entitled to it, minus the usual deductions for minor repairs, painting, cleaning. The landlord has no obligation to do anything to "mitigate" other than self-interest.