What are landlord ethics/rules in this scenario?

[trying to improve the format, not sure why the paragraph breaks aren't working.]

Tenant has an expiring lease at $5,000/month.

Landlord sends lease renewal at $6,000.

Tenant believes $6,000 is well above market and counters somewhere in between.

Landlord rejects offer Tenant sees a similar unit in the same building asking $5,000, and applies for the new unit. Offers the the full ask of $5,000.

Landlord says you can move if you want, but the new rent will be $5,500 ($500 higher than where it has listed the new apartment).

Landlord says the alternative is to stay where you are at $6,000 on a new lease.

This strikes me as patently unfair, but I'm not sure of the legalities?

As a landlord, I wouldn't do this. Unless I really wanted to get rid of the tenant.

In market-rate rentals, the easiest leverage may be if one of the tenants is a member of a protected class - claim the $5500 rate is discrimination. Also note that tenants are now entitled to advance notice of rent increases under the new law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/nyregion/rent-laws-new-york.html

Does the new apartment has some special concessions which bring the net effective rate to $5000 for new renters? Legally believe they have a right to charge what they want for an apartment you aren’t renting already but assuming you are a good tenant, not nice. Or perhaps they have some one lined up for the other apartment.

Does the new apartment have some special concessions which bring the net effective rate to $5000 for new renters? Legally believe they have a right to charge what they want for an apartment you aren’t renting already but assuming you are a good tenant, not nice. Or perhaps they have some one lined up for the other apartment.

300- yes, true that is true that new apartment comes with 1 month free rent concession, so the gross is higher (call it ~$5,400) and the net is $5,000/month. However the tenant (a friend, not me personally) is willing to step into that and pay the $5,400 gross /$5,000 net rather than the $6,000 being offered on the new lease. The tenant, as far as I know, is in excellent standing, always pays on time, etc.

We are sure the landlord doesn't want him out of the building -- rather they just seek to renew the existing lease at the highest rate possible.

If landlord won't agree to rent him the new apartment on the same terms that they are asking of the market generally, then this feels like discrimination against existing tenants and takes advantage of the "soft costs" and practical constraints around moving that tenants have after they're firmly in place somewhere. Yes, it would be different if they already have someone else lined up for the new place, but so far they haven't claimed anything like that. Strange situation. Thanks all.

and to be clear, the landlord's offer on the new place to tenant is without concessions. it's $5,500 gross/ $5,500 net. versus the $5,400 gross / $5,000 net per the public listing. Of course, tenant's main preference would be to stay where he is with a new lease at 5-10% increase instead of 20% increase...

It is very common for landlords to offer concessions only to new tenants. It is no different from WSJ offering discounts to only new subscribers.

Landlord knows that it costs $ to move and $$$ of emotional damage.

When I worked in multifamily a while ago, we added up the cost of tenant churn, and it became clear how foolish this game is. The days and weeks lost to vacancy, the cost of rehabilitating the unit, the negative word-of-mouth, the potential to replace a good tenant with a bad tenant (and the associated costs of that), and the additional staffing required in the leasing office just weren't worth the incremental rent we would get.

As a tenant, your best option is to tell him you're moving out if you don't get the $5000 price. Yes, it's emotionally annoying and this landlord will probably try to screw you on the security deposit, but why do you want to deal with this shyster? An intelligent landlord does everything possible to keep good tenants.

I agree with George. The only thing I will add is that if you are dealing with anyone but the actual landlord themselves (assuming it's a person) there may be some incentive for them to be acting this way.

Agreed. As a landlord, turnover is killer. Plus, we're really picky about tenants. We'd so much rather hang on to the good ones.

I'm with George -- if the tenant is being offered a rent above advertised rent (and being offered $5500 gross where others are offered $5400 gross sounds like that qualifies) then this sounds like there's room for a Fair Housing action.