whats the reprecussions

Hi Snuffles. You ask a good question.

The remedy for a landlord to evict a tenant who stays in possession of the property in breach of his lease is known as a Holdover Proceeding. It is an "accelerated" means of removing a tenant from property. Unfortunately for the landlord, and fortunately for you, it requires a several procedural hoops, including notice, getting before a judge and getting a marshal to show up to the property to carry you out. In my experience, that has never occurred within the span of two weeks. With no lawyer representing you, it could take a month or more. With a lawyer representing you, it could take many months.

So yes, you likely could physically occupy the space for two extra weeks without anybody forcibly removing you.

As to consequences... there would be many, and they're all bad. Technically, the law does not consider breach of contract immoral, meaning there is nothing "wrong" or "punishable" about holding over. It isn't theft as some people here have put it, and I've never heard of anyone being arrested for it. Nonetheless, you would be liable for consequential damages - the damages for which you'd be liable if you breached your lease by holding over. The landlord would likely incur substantial damages if he had another tenant moving in and because of your breach, he was unable to rent the space to that tenant. If the future tenant chose to treat his lease with the landlord as breached,then you could conceivably be liable for the entire value of that lease. Yikes!
.
.
.
Marco Santori is a lawyer in New York City, but he isn't your lawyer, and you should not rely on this post for legal advice. If you have any other questions, feel free to email at MSANTORI@NMLLPLAW.COM

Hi Snuffles. You ask a good question.

The remedy for a landlord to evict a tenant who stays in possession of the property in breach of his lease is known as a Holdover Proceeding. It is an "accelerated" means of removing a tenant from property. Unfortunately for the landlord, and fortunately for you, it requires a several procedural hoops, including notice, getting before a judge and getting a marshal to show up to the property to carry you out. In my experience, that has never occurred within the span of two weeks. With no lawyer representing you, it could take a month or more. With a lawyer representing you, it could take many months.

So yes, you likely could physically occupy the space for two extra weeks without anybody forcibly removing you.

As to consequences... there would be many, and they're all bad. Technically, the law does not consider breach of contract immoral, meaning there is nothing "wrong" or "punishable" about holding over. It isn't theft as some people here have put it, and I've never heard of anyone being arrested for it. Nonetheless, you would be liable for consequential damages - the damages for which you'd be liable if you breached your lease by holding over. The landlord would likely incur substantial damages if he had another tenant moving in and because of your breach, he was unable to rent the space to that tenant. If the future tenant chose to treat his lease with the landlord as breached,then you could conceivably be liable for the entire value of that lease. Yikes!
.
.
.
Marco Santori is a lawyer in New York City, but he isn't your lawyer, and you should not rely on this post for legal advice. If you have any other questions, feel free to email at MSANTORI@NMLLPLAW.COM

Forget the landlord angle. Imagine you're the new tenant who is scheduled to move into the apartment on Day 1 of your squat. Because you're being a dick, that person is now scrambling to make alternate arrangements, one of which may include slamming your thick skull into building the moment you step outside. Jackie Chiles would have a field day with your concussion as a repercussion.

NYCMatt: you should not be giving legal advice, especially when you could be read as suggesting that landlords commit crimes. Self-help evictions are criminal. So is lying to the police in order to get them to arrest someone baselessly. A hold-over tenant is still a tenant, not a trespasser, and the landlord has no right to possession until a court grants it. Which it will, but not necessarily quickly.

On the ethics:

Standard NY leases include a holdover provision. There is nothing intrinsically unethical in availing yourself of it.

The reason holding over may be unethical is that it hurts someone. The someone hurt is the next tenant, if there is one, who is counting on being able to move in on a particular day. If there is no next tenant or if the next tenant doesn't need a particular move in date, the landlord's ethical claim is quite weak: once the tenant has paid for the holdover days, the landlord hasn't been harmed.

Accordingly, an ethical landlord should be willing to allow a hold over if the apartment hasn't been rented yet. Anything else would be rather dog in the manger.

A practical landlord, regardless of ethics, is likely to come to the same conclusion. Court orders granting evictions are slow and expensive to get in NYC if the tenant is reasonably savvy and/or represented by a savvy lawyer. So the tenant has something real to offer and isn't just asking for a favor.

The real advice, therefore, is: negotiate. Ethical and practical landlords will be willing to accommodate.

If the landlord is just being a jerk, you can think about extreme tactics. You are likely to win in court -- few judges are going to put someone out on the street just because a landlord asks them to, especially if you are willing to pay the rent in advance and agree to an eviction without further process if you aren't out by a specified date. But if this is just a few days, it'll cost you far more in lawyers fees and inconvenience than you'd pay to have the moving company hold your stuff while you stay in a hotel. And if the LL sues you, regardless of whether you win or not, you are likely to end up on a credit agency list of potential troublemaker tenants, which will follow you around for years.

lol@ flarf...I wouldnt mess with a landlord you dont know. For all you know, he isnt going to go the legal route and instead you get a bunch of tough guys showing up at your door...not worth the risk to me....

if I were the landlord, I'd change the locks and then have YOU take ME to court. He won't be able to rent the apt with you as squatter but it would make your life very difficult.

Have you even bothered asking the landlord if you could stay longer, offering to pay a pro-rated weekly rent, or was stealing from him the only option that occurred to you?

i have a place.. only 200 per night. im a top.

just pay an additional month as a month-to-month tenant

i'm more than happy to pay for the month. they want me out tho.

So you feel entitled to steal from them because moving out, at this time, is not convenient for you?

entitled no..but more like a calculated approach to a situation.
Like my subject header says i'm looking for opinions of the repercussions of it not the moral aspects as i know its not ethical.

If you only need a few wks, hire a company that will pickup, store and deliver a few wks later. It's less than the cost of 2 moves. Then pack a suitcase and stay with friends for a few wks if it's only you. I've done this a couple times when my move-out and move-in dates didn't coincide. This assumes it's just you. If you have a family, I would call the landlord and offer him double rent to extend for a few weeks.

the probably want you out because they've rented the apartment to someone else. suck it up and pay storage and see if you can crash with a friend or something. you'll have major issues if you don't get out when you are supposed to.

send them the check. if they cash it or not does not matter. by the time they start anything, you will be gone. if you have a security deposit, just send them a certified letter letting them know that you are "living out" your deposit.

1 minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse

send them the check. if they cash it or not does not matter. by the time they start anything, you will be gone. if you have a security deposit, just send them a certified letter letting them know that you are "living out" your deposit.

what exactly does "living out" your deposit mean?

Something is wrong with the order of the posts on this thread.

My favorite is NYCMatt who thinks the police will arrest you for trespassing. That's funny. Funny funny funny. Especially when you show then your drivers' license with the address you are living in. So funny. Next someone should talk about sending a certified letter.

>He could also very easily cut your water supply. And your electricity.

That's so funny. Messing with ConEd ... wait till you see who gets arrested for vandalism.

"Like my subject header says i'm looking for opinions of the repercussions of it not the moral aspects as i know its not ethical."

OK, for starters the landlord could call the police and have you arrested for trespassing. It most likely will not stick, but you WILL be taken to the station, booked, processed, and given a court date. It would definitely put a crimp in your day.

He could also very easily cut your water supply. And your electricity.

And this is all just for starters.

Still think it's worth saving a few bucks on moving and short-term storage?

Also, God will hate you -- even if you don't believe in her.

Well, I'm not so sure about the police getting involved in a landlord-tenant dispute. But when you signed the lease you made an agreement. You gave your word. The landlord has done nothing to breach his word to you from what you state. I don't know about you, but I prefer to go through life knowing that I've tried to behave honorably. Inconvenience and added cost is not a justification for what you contemplate. You may wish to divorce the ethics of the situation from your inquiry here, but as you can see from most posts above, that isn't how honest, decent people approach a problem--by setting aside ethics. Ethics are part and parcel of the situation, and how you behave defines who you are. I hope you reconsider and take the higher road.

What is with the changing time stamps on this thread?

I am not sure but I'd be worrying that the landlord would call the sheriff and have you removed from the premise as a trespasser. It might say in your lease but can he literally remove your stuff from the apartment at such time as well (paying for it out of your security deposit). Then you would have to make emergency arrangement to have your stuff picked up.

I wouldn't imagine it would result in being thrown in jail but at the point the lease is over you are no longer the tenant. The next lease holder would be the tenant.

>I am not sure but I'd be worrying that the landlord would call the sheriff and have you removed from the premise as a trespasser

I guess you could worry, but that would be an irrational worry since the Sherrif isn't doing anything until the court orders an eviction.

>but at the point the lease is over you are no longer the tenant. The next lease holder would be the tenant.
The "old" tenant is in posession until he leaves or is evicted. The "new" tenant isn't a tenant until the landlord is able to give posession.

"All around in my hometown
they are trying to track me down
they say they want to bring me in guilty
for the slaying of the deputy
for the life of the deputy..."