technical question on condo lease form

valueseeker:

I am in the same boat. I have thoroughly reviewed the Blumberg lease, which I found shockingly one-sided and leaves the tenant relying on the good will of the landlord to treat him/her fairly, because the tenant has virtually no rights under the lease. And although the landlord basically has no obligations under the lease the tenant has a gazillion of them that are not excused under any circumstance.

I spent hours drafting riders that override some of the more draconian clauses, including clause 23. I spent a lot of time on and put a lot of thought into coming up with alternative language that is a little more palatable to me while still favoring the landlord. The document was received as well as a lead balloon, and the broker put a halt to the application process.

I will let you know if things move forward, but on my end I feel once bitten twice shy. I have been burned by my current landlord and will not put myself in a position where the deck is fully stacked in the landlord's favor. I need a trump card or two up my sleeve to protect myself.

I would appreciate you sharing your experiences.

is the REBNY form better?

I thought that the Blumberg lease sucks, but definitely cross out certain provisions on sale of the apartment or on increases in rent.

What does clause 23 state ? Where can I view a copy of this form/lease ?

As a landlord & attorney, I have the opposite view.
As most will admit landlord/tenant law heavily favors the tenant (Courts tend to favor tenants in many cases).
The Blumberg contract simply levels the playing field.

I have to agree with qwerty. Although the condo lease is full of little landmines for sub-tenants. But in actual practice in the "real world" the condo owner is exposing himself to a heap of trouble should they draw a bad tenant. It can easily be 8 months to evict someone in this city and if a tenant habitually pays rent late what can you really do? A tenant can postpone a housing court date 2 or 3 times dragging things on.

That said I understand that a prospective tenant with a rational thought process does not want to sign a contract stripping him of a number of rights.I have also worked with people that on principle refused to sign an unaltered lease, even after telling me privately they understood that most likely there would be no problems.

There are a few clauses that have to be removed, the sale one being the most important along with passing on charges. I think you also need to address who will maintain/replace the appliances should one break. Basic repair services will be available to you from the buildings maintenance staff. Other than that what can really go wrong in a large condo building in Manhattan? Pay the rent and the owner will be happy.

I think some owners get nervous when a tenant starts striking up a lease thinking this guy hasn't even moved in yet and he's already being a pain in the ass. I advise owners to be reasonable and point out the same things as I do to the tenants. And like all negotiations we give a little, take a little and strike a reasonable deal. With large LL's like Rockrose or Related they will allow no changes to their leases.

REBNY form is better and I have no issues with it - I have used it last 3 times I rented. Good news for us so far has been that the owner's broker offered to remove the two most painful clauses in Blumberg A 101 without any negotiations (lease cancellation and pass through of increase common charges and taxes). Though there are other things that bother me, I am really focusing on Clause 23 (tenants default) which is much more onerous compared to the REBNY form.
In Blumberg A101 form, if the tenant is late by only 3 days, landlord has the right to cancel the lease at which point tenant has to leave BUT even more onerous, all rent for the remainder of the lease period is due (REBNY gives 16 days)- only 3 days late!!

Do New York housing laws override this? The only way I can get comfort with the way its written is if this clause is not enforceable in courts.

Just pay on time. Think of rent as the highest priority expense that it is (your biggest outlay for your most basic needs) and you'll be ok.

If you set-up an auto payment plan with your bank the clause (and your worries) are moot.

qwerty: This is coming from the LL who wants to charge the tenant for re-caulking a tub (http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/4619-secty-depsit-charge-tenant-for-re-caulking-tub-bc-mold-).

I am an exemplary tenant. I pay rent on time, I have a cleaning lady who keeps my apartment spotless, I don't play loud music or have loud parties, I don't have kids or pets, I am gainfully employed (not in finance) and I have cash in the bank to cover 2 years' rent. Knowing that, I am trying to protect myself should the LL turn out to be a scumbag.

I have not met or talked to the LL. The broker is acting as the intermediary and refusing to let me deal directly with the LL. It does not make sense for me to sign away my rights on a Blumberg lease without even having a sense of whether the LL would play nice if, unexpectly, push came to shove.

OnTheMove: Sounds like you're a great tenant.

If you're also good about keeping mildew from growing on the caulk around your tub; I've a 1 bedroom in Hell's Kitchen coming available soon.

Any interest?

Qwerty, I pay rent on time- that is not the issue. The question is what is a reasonable consequence (punishment) for a mistake (mine or even my bank's). Most landlords will act reasonably and will not throw me out (even if the lease says they can). But this is a condo-I don't know the owner and how he treats his renters. Should I expose myself to such draconian consequences?
As they say - you hope for the best, but you need to plan for the worst-no?

qwerty: Thanks, but no thanks. First and foremost because I am looking for a place in the 70s or 80s west of Amsterdam.

You guys may be over thinking this clause. No landlord (esp. in this environment) would dream of initiating eviction proceedings in housing court if a tenant is a few days late on a rent payment. The judge would rip the LL a new one at the first hearing for wasting the court's time. Its not like LLs WANT to waste their time and cash in housing court. "Throwing a tenant out" takes 5-6 months to acomplish and costs the LL plenty! The clause is just there to drive home the point that rent is super-important, the LL is hoping for the best with you but he's planning for the worst....