Broker's ongoing responsibility to tenant

why is this question phrased differently estupida?

Details... Curiosity, not to mention necessity...

One might say they have a moral obligation to secure initial delivery of what they promised. Anything beyond this is a goodwill gesture.

Unless the broker has knowingly aided and abetted the landlord to
cheat you or to induce you to lease by making false representations
of fact concerning the condition of the apartment you lease, pro-
babky not

I doubt that a tenant should expect that a broker has any ongoing responsibility, and even if there is misrepresentation, or just wilful neglect (e.g. why did the apartment turn over every year, year after year), the value of going after a broker in court or through the state or REBNY seems like a waste of time. Some might give you a Perry Mason or Matlock view of how you can sue for damages for satisfaction, but ultimately you'll probably end up wasting your time and aggravating yourself like a guy with a cat.

Nothing in my view beyond making sure that your move in is smooth and in the same apt (including same condition) you saw.

>in the same apt (including same condition) you saw.

Wow, the broker should make sure you can move in to the same apartment you actually rented.

I feel there's a moral responsibility (and most brokers with a long-term view are going to want for their own selfish business reasons to make the tenant happy, because it's cheaper to keep a present client than to acquire a new one) but in practice these situations can be tough to fix.

Care to share more details?

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

All these responses should come after a simple question: is the broker in question your tenant rep or were they the landlord's broker?

What's your best-case notion of how your broker would help your situation?