Investor owned apt in coop sale listing

Not at all. Realtors and ethics don't mix. But realtors and money do. Call the listing agent and tell him you're thinking about listing and want someone who knows the building. But gosh he's kind of screwing you with this misleading ad and you're not sure about him.

You can
1. Report the listing to Streeteasy pointing out flaws in the description - how enjoyable will it be to live there whereas you actually can't live there etc.
2. Comment on the listing in Streeteasy talk.
3. Ignore as it really will not impact the price of your apartment as buyers and appraisers will figure out the price being out of line with other sales in your area?

I’ve seen many real estate listings in NYC and elsewhere for tenant occupied properties that do not disclose that the unit is tenant occupied in the Redfin, StreetEasy, Zillow listing that the public sees. I don’t think this is illegal at all, as every single detail about a property is typically not listed in the 1-2 paragraph that the public sees on the internet. The tenant occupancy would definitely be on any disclosure form, or there maybe a “refer to broker” remark in the listing letting you know there are other details. But again. I don’t think it’s illegal at all to NOT list that a property for sale is subject to tenants rights in the simplified Redfin blurb, but it MUST obviously disclosed in any disclosures package regarding the property, which any serious buyer would request. Besides, if any potential buyer sees a unit in a building which is abnormally low priced relative to other units in the building, they will something is up, like it’s a fixer and needs major work or is tenant occupied with a protected tenant

Turbo,
I hear you that the final buyer is unlikely to be deceived. However, tenant occupied usually has some type of lease expiration with a few months or a year. However, OP seems to be posting a case of rent-stabilization or rent-control which really means almost Tenant Owned in NYC. I would think that is something which should be disclosed upfront in the listing otherwise it is deceptive.

Fairly easy to tell the building starting from the usename.

The words in the law are "honest" and "accurate." I'm not a lawyer but I would argue that omission of a material fact violates that standard. It certainly violates the standard of custom, because apartments with rent-stabilized tenants in place are typically described as such.

(Here's an old example: https://streeteasy.com/building/127-west-96-street-new_york/5d)

I'd complain to StreetEasy and also to REBNY.

ali r.
{upstairs realty}