Tenant refuses to pay increase rent and move out

So just to understand you completely: he is on a "month-to-month" agreement right now? Not on/using a lease at this moment?

Its a 1 year lease which we renewed last year and then was due to end in Jul and we gave him notice in May

So, since it was due to end in July, there is no lease NOW, since it's August, soon to be Sept, correct? Meaning, there is no lease at THIS moment, correct?

Technically yes . We gave him 1 month extension and now he is asking another month as he cannot find an apartment. Given what he is paying, it will be impossible for him to find one like ours

If there is no active lease right now, then there is no contract allowing him to stay in the apartment. If any extension runs out at the end of this or next, then, at that point, he has no legal right to reside in the apartment, if you don't want him to (this is not a rent regulated apartment). When he claims that he is not in violation of any contract, its because there isn't any contract. As such, he's not protected. It is possible to just start the eviction process, although it might be wise to certified mail him a letter explaining, politely, that he will no longer be offered a new lease, and is no longer under contract to live in the unit.

What reason, if any, did he give for his "right" to stay?

i would be nice and let him stay at an inflated rate. he is causing you to have to put your apartment on the market at a time when you will not be able to get prime rate. july/august would have been the best time to get maximum rent. the way he/she's going, you'll get it in the dead of winter.

He refuses to pay any increase and just want to stay at the old rate. We had extended the lease by two months to 31 August.

explain to him that he either pays the increase or leave. if he doesn't do either, explain to him that if eviction proceedings start, he will be blacklisted and will have major issues renting in the future.

And of course once you will have to start refusing his rent checks

he can continue to pay the same amount and stay

if you reject his rent for 3 months in a row, you can then go to tenant court to evict him. in this case you normally will lose another 6~9 months of rent.

or you can pay him some cash to buy him out

agreed with refusing the checks. i would provide a letter to him outlining the new rent, significantly higher on a month-to-month basis. if he gives you the check for that amount, cash it. if not, don't.

What does this tenant do? Do you have his work details? In some cases the company your tenant works for may care a lot about reputation ( typically banks) and their employee behavior in day to day matters. If so, call up his boss after warning the tenant.

that is such a fundamentally bad idea, i don't even know where to start.

get a lawyer and let him/her guide you and handle it.

don't start threatening people.

very, very poor idea.

I think you need a lawyer because you sound like a nice person & it's very possible that your tenant is not, is way ahead of you & has a plan to s-c-r-e-w you, indeed already HAS, no? Call a lawyer ASAP ~ no more mister nice guy.

Dr d has a good point.

Thank you for all for your advise. We will be sending him another emal reminding him of the end of lease and the consequences. He gets emotional and threatening in previous correspondences and we really don't like being nasty. I will let you all know his reaction.

With a nasty tenant you need a nasty lawyer. Good ones are 250-500 an hour. It is expensive but you have to weigh the cost against potential lost rent and permanent squatting on your property. For a lawyer, the nastier the better.

You have a month to month lease. It needs to be terminated at least 30 days in advance. I would tell him (verbally) that on Sept 3rd (the next day the courts are open) you will begin the eviction. He will be black listed. No prospective future landlord will care about the circumstances of a previous court case. He will be black balled. It is not your problem he hasn't found something - that's his problem.

You're WAY too soft to be NYC landlord. The reason mom and pop landlords are a dying breed is that NYC housing laws are WAY too tenant friendly and so tenants have lost their grasp of property rights. NYC land-lording means attorneys. Lots of them. Mom and pops get walked on because they hate litigation. They'd rather sell their property and so they do (to guys like me who have good lawyers).

That is YOUR apartment not his. He has NO RIGHT to stay there. Get him out and get him out now. NO EXTENSION.

File on Tuesday 9/3.

Your email to your tenant should merely say that his occupancy rights terminate this Saturday. Do not discuss consequences. Just do the consequences. Actually do them. On Tuesday. Do not accept any more checks. Stop worrying about his emotions.
Any threats from him in writing about property damage or personal safety should be printed out and brought to your police precinct as you receive them and should be forwarded to your lawyer who you have already called today about hiring for the holdover filing on Tuesday. Any threats that are made orally if you are concerned about them should lead to a 911 call.

Jazzman, nice post.. curious if you care to share your attorneys?

we had a similar instance and after a ton of research we found most attorneys only would litigate for the tenant due to ny protenant laws...thanks much.

I don't know if you really need to litigate this but you'd better know how best to proceed & what papers to file when & where & that all your "T"s are crossed. I'm not a lawyer, this is based on 3rd party accounts. That's why I said that the tenant may be ahead of luvbrooklyn & knows just how to play this & how long it will take to evict. I wouldn't waste time on e-mails & pleading; it's time to get serious & learn the necessary legal steps to evict in this pro-tenant environment.

You need to send him a physical notice--certified letter---just to be safe. Then follow the advice of this thread. Sounds like you are being too nice. In addition, if this building is being managed by a managing agent (i.e.--its a condo or co-op apt) then you should get them involved.

The best advice here is from Jazzman and ab_11218 probably. Do NOT get his work (or anyone else) involved. This is between YOU and the TENANT. Should it go to court, anything else other than standard operating procedure can look very bad on you. Also, no one wants this process to get more messy than it already is -- him OR you.

There is also some confusion about the "30 days" --

The first step is to serve him with a written notice of termination, which gives 30 days notice and which states that you will terminate the tenancy and that refusal to vacate will lead to eviction proceedings (Real Property Law §232-a). To your benefit, it might be good to use the actual language of the law.

Whether or not you choose to get a lawyer is up to you. However, many tenants (maybe yours, maybe not yours) become too scared, or eventually realize what they are doing is wrong, and leave on their own when they realize they are in violation of the law. If possible, you can perhaps save some money, and begin the proceedings yourself. This will make things less of a hassle, less expensive, and less hostile for everyone. Really, it's not that difficult.

Either way, if the tenant is stubborn (or braindead), and DOESN'T leave any time before the actual eviction, expect him to stay in the apartment (and thus, rent you lose) about 2-6 months rent. This is if everything goes smoothly. If there are hiccups in the procedure, or anything you haven't told us here, it may take longer.

sonya, correct, but re: "serving the tenant is easy," it's my understanding HE can't physically serve tenant and he must have to find a 3rd party to physically serve him, so this may be an issue if tenant is trying to dodge him..

he can certify mail or slip serving under the door (but can't leave with doorman) but my understanding is PHYSICALLY serving tenant is the best since it avoids a small loophole later in court if merely certified mail where tenant can ask for another extension.. i agree i hate paying expensive lawyers (and some will screw this up), but just wanted to make a point he can't physically serve his tenant as we initially thought.

Go to landlord tenant court and file a holdover action. The people who work at the courthouse will tell you how to file. Not sure but you may have to give him a thirty day notice to vacate. I would mention to him that once the court rules an eviction it will show up on his credit report as a judgment of eviction. It will stay on there for seven years, so good luck to him in finding another apartment or getting a mortgage. I would also mention that once the holdover is filed, that may go into a data base that landlords use when they are checking out a prospective renter.

No need for an attorney, which is why your tenant is jerking you around, but you can do this yourself.

Yes make certain you serve him properly, the courthouse has information on this.

ss400k,
The BEST way is to use US Mail, certified/return receipt requested. This way, there is a paper trail (and signature) that the tenant received the notice. Handing it to him personally is a little antiquated, IMO, it sets up a "you said, he said" situation, (not to mention a personal confrontation)... and besides, the tenant might get very agitated/suspicious if the landlord personally knocks on his door.

The notice of termination should not be sent via a 3rd party (other than mail/courier). It must be sent from the owner/landlord/managing agent.

op, some good advice on here.. read the link below.. its lengthy, but a long lunchbreak gives you idea on proper way to serve, file, etc...

http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/pdfs/Landlordbooklet.pdf

aside from threads like these there really needs to be a nyc landlord forum/group, as landlords REALLY don't need expensive lawyers given a high rate (around 95%, someone correct me) or so end up in mediation as opposed to trial..

>The BEST way is to use US Mail, certified/return receipt requested. This way, there is a paper trail (and signature) that the tenant received the notice. Handing it to him personally is a little antiquated, IMO, it sets up a "you said, he said" situation, (not to mention a personal confrontation)... and besides, the tenant might get very agitated/suspicious if the landlord personally knocks on his door.

There is a very specific way to serve a tenant. Why are you making something up?

There is a specific way, which needs to follow RPL requirements. Read what I wrote above to understand the proper proceedings.

omg.

ss400k - unfortunately my attorneys wouldn't be interested in taking the case of a small landlord - they are only interested in repeat business and long relationships.
I would suggest that all small landlords belong to the RSA and the RSA would have recommendations. When I first stated out I found the RSA to be very helpful.
http://rsanyc.net

Or CHIP might be a good resource too - http://chipnyc.org

thanks for links jazz.. none of my units are RC/RS but i'm sure there is some helpful info to scour nonetheless.. unfortunate your attorneys would think i'm too small-time but i understand.. just a heads up to OP though that i contacted 2 top 20 (global ranking) legal firms in nyc and they were more than happy to work with me for my tiny 1 Bedroom rental in UWS.. i guess its firm dependent and let's be honest, market is kinda saturated with lawyers..

also checked out avvo/google/etc sites for landlord lawyer recs, but i found many of the reviews seemed to be suspect (ie same post date, etc) so tread with caution. update us with the outcome, gluck.

ss400k,
Are you in the midst of a similar situation as luvbrooklyn?

Don't have to find a third party to send a 30 day notice to vacate the place. A third party is needed when an action is filed.

That said have no idea why so many people think that an attorney is needed for every little thing.

A small landlord looks better in court representing himself, for one thing it shows that he may not be that well off to spring for an attorney.

streetsmart, exactly what I was saying a few posts ago.

Generally, I find lawyers create MORE problems in general, rather than HELP things. They have their place -- a complex litigation with a lot of nuances and gray areas is a good example. With the case as described above, it is pretty straight forward, and honestly, quite common in NYC. It's possible that an informed and vigilant individual can handle this on their own.

>It's possible that an informed and vigilant individual can handle this on their own.

You described the OP to a 'T'

not to mention the OP can supplement her current knowledge by the excellent, correct information found here

fieldschester = member of the grays?

Sonya_D=Sonya_D?

Overall, this is a crappy situation. Most of the comments on here, in my opinion, are wrong. I do agree with Scott that everything should be in writing via certified mail. I've got to admit there is very little you can do. This is NOT a situation where he is not paying rent or performing illegal activities in the apartment which would therefore justify starting the eviction process. What you have is a tenant who is an A-hole. They exist and he knows that he has you by the nuts. Landlords can't even get tenants out of their apartments who are performing illegal actives. If you took him to court, my guess is that he'll furnish an email that states "landlord allowed me to stay at same rate for month to month" yada yada..and the judge will rule in his favor likely viewing this as vague, etc. I don't know, I'm not an attorney, but what I do know is that an attorney retainer fee is likely about $5k for something like this. If you're collecting $2k a month in rent, well, you do math. My experience with real estate attorneys in particular have been awful. They have consistenky proven to screw things up time and time again.

I'd personally just take the rent until he leaves. I feel like anything else physically or verbally will cost you more in the long run. If I understand correctly, he is not threatening to not pay you rent. This is why it was probably an error in hindsight to allow him to go month to month. I know people are saying that you're being too nice, I'm like that too, but I just get the sense if you say "I am starting the eviction process" that might motivate him to stop paying rent altogether and the you'll definitely need an attorney. Imagine that; 3 months of no rent and an attorney fee on top of that. You'll blink and be out $15k before you can catch a breath.

Your tenant is just a bad guy. Fortunately that probably won't happen with your next tenant. I know my advise isn't the best, but sometimes the best thing is to do nothing. You'll still get paid and hopefully he leaves at the end of the month. Just bite the bullet, man. Keep pressure on him to leave tell him that you have other prospective tenants ready to rent the unit right away a higher rate. Tell him that he is costing you money. Make him feel bad. Guilt trip him, but take his check and DEFINITELY cash them. I don't get that advice either. Not to cash the check? Really? Then he'll just call up and cancel them after 30-60 days. That's a slippery slope as well.

..and just to be clear, you personally cannot perform an actual or physical eviction, which brings me back to the logic of people saying not to accept checks. It's evident that he is not leaving, but willing to pay. This is a very strange situation. I'll stand by what I said, but if you refuse the checks, its your loss. I see that backfiring for some reason. What a prick this guy is. Maybe he gets hit by the M23 or something and your problem works itself out.

Nah,
Like you said, you are obviously not an attorney, this much is clear.

Refusing the rent checks is necessary for the landlord to do in order to build a case against the tenant. If he continues to accept rent, he is accepting that the occupant is legitimately living in his apartment (he is essentially accepting payment for a service he is offering).

Which route the OP wants to go is entirely up to him. He can continue with said tenant, collect rent, and not have any further discussion. Or, if he wants the tenant out, he will have to officially ask him (notice of termination), and subsequently not accept rent. He cannot, however, have it both ways -- if he continues to collect rent, it will be VERY difficult to oust the tenant.

Woman's intuition tells me that something smells fishy here. For starters, no explicit statement that unit is not rent-regulated.

alanhart--
Had this apartment been rent regulated, then there would be no "extensions" or month-to-month situation. There would only have been a standard lease renewal.

Nah, your advice is wrong. This is a clear cut case the landlord will win. Housing courts are crazy, but this is one case where they are consistently willing to enforce the laws. Market rate tenants who overstay their leases (aka "holdover tenants') are shown little sympathy in housing courts.

Also of note is that most likely, the OP's lease will allow for him to collect all legal fees, lost rent, and arrears from the tenant and trash the tenant's credit and get him blacklisted from renting other NY apartments at the same time.

The landlord has the leverage here. He just needs to stand strong and take the leap of hiring an attorney. It's a leap because it costs money and time. The time he won't get back. And most likely he won't get all of the legal fees back because the case will settle rather than ever get to a judgment. But in the end, the OP is the OWNER. The case law in the country/state/city is expansive about an owner's rights to his property. Sometimes you just need the courts to help you enforce those rights.

>The case law in the country/state/city is expansive about an owner's rights to his property. Sometimes you just need the courts to help you enforce those rights.

2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate, Courts, Courts, Yeah Courts!

Ahh the joys of investing in NYC RE

Sonya_D, I think you're adding a level of landlord sophistication and formality that isn't there. Not at all impossible that stabilized renewal lease was offered with legally permissible increase, and tenant asked for and was granted a temporary reprieve at old rent instead. And then held over.

It's always better to rent than to own.

Hmmm, wouldnt a lease still be in place? is this "temporary reprieve" allowed in a RS/RC situation (with no lease)? I was under the impression that a lease always had to be in place/offered...

>Hmmm, wouldnt a lease still be in place? is this "temporary reprieve" allowed in a RS/RC situation (with no lease)? I was under the impression that a lease always had to be in place/offered...

No
Yes
No

Any ACTUAL information?

What "ACTUAL information" do you need that differs from the law?

Where do you get the idea that this unit is RS/RC? I get no indication of that.

There's no indication that it is nor that it is not.

But he "is paying way below the market rate for his unit" after he "had not had any rental increases for the last two years."

I didn't take those two statements to suggest rent stabilization.

No, to me I thought it indicated that the OP was too nice for her/his own good & that the tenant was mistaking their kindness for weakness (or stupidity).

I think Fieldchester is giving you the best advice. No threat, just action.

What about Sonya_D's advice to use a method of mailing that gives the intended recipient proof that he never received anything?

Actually, the absence of proof doesn't prove the nonexistent mailing (there is a term which describes this cyclical logic, but I can't remember it right now). It just says that there could or couldn't be one. But regardless, on top of this, the mailing is stamped "return to sender" (or something similar depending on carrier), and is stamped, meaning that it has been sent through the mail.

Are you even a NYer? Have you ever used the mail? Have you ever existed in the real world?

LOL, most likely, based on your comments both as "fieldschester" and your former pseudonym (now grayed out, and thus no longer being used by you), I have been living in NYC since before you were a thought in your parents' heads!

A thought in my parent's heads? Is that how the saying goes wherever you are from?

I was saying a saying? Is that what people from wherever you're from think?

Sonya_D wrote *parents'* ... but fieldschester wrote *parent's*. That's because fieldschester has only one parent: hfscomm.

Tenant is way below market ... for what other reason than Rent Stabilization? And what explanation for zero increase in exactly the time frame of a 2-year lease -- which generally is offered by landlords only when mandated by Rent Stabilization??? A "nice landlord"? That's nearly as ridiculous as a "smart broker". Sorry, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I'm quite certain it will be delicious roasted in a 375 degree oven for an agreeable amount of time (but not two years without a temperature change).

LOL, alanhart :-) high5!!

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait for the OP to tell us, to know definitively.
(although I should add that I have lived in an unregulated apartment, below market, for several years, in the past. An anomaly, yes, but impossible, no).

Alan has a new friend.

Could the landlord notify the tenant that on a certain date they will begin renovations on the apartment? And on that date, remove the front door.

worst advice in thread:
call tenant's employer--threaten tenant in writing that you will damage his credit, blackball him, etc.

best advice:
cease communicating with "tenant", get a good lawyer, and proceed as directed.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts this is a unregulated, free-market apt--likely a tenant apt in an owner-occupied brownstone. Or a condo being rented out by owner.

mmmm donuts.

Juxie,
It is technically not legal to make the apartment unsafe/uninhabitable while a tenant is residing there. However, this tactic has been tried before to remove unwanted tenants. Sometimes the case goes to court. In your example where the front door is removed, it is very unlikely that any court would rule in favor of the landlord (the one who ordered the renovation/door removal.).

yikes,
I agree with your bet. This type of brownstone setup is among the more common types of below-market rental situations.

Is there another type of "legal" besides "technically" legal?

Nope! (although if you speak to those who are supposed to follow the war powers act, they might disagree!).

I had a landlord friend of mine in this same situation who made it VERY uncomfortable for the tenant (squatter) to continue residing there, including shutting off the water and electricity periodically.

Worked like a charm.

Funny... years ago, an acquaintance of mine lived in a lovely rental where the landlord did something similar. The tenant was knowledgeable, though. He stuck with it, remained in the unit through all the illegal activity, and eventually wound up with triple damages. All legal fees paid for by the landlord too. it was an individual landlord, I heard stories that it nearly bankrupted him. I think he eventually ended up having to sell the building.

There are all types....

And then of course, if you push a landlord too far, you may just end up like Michael Sullivan and Camden Sylvia.

Or if you push a tenant too far...
(and there's no proof that Rodriguez killed them).

There are crazies everywhere...