Manhattan apartment is $10 a month … for 50 years

ny post ^ | november 8, 2014 | Kate Briquelet

[lowbridge]

In 2009, Jud Parker got a West Village landlord to give him a ­duplex apartment on tony Minetta Street for $10 a month — for 50 years!

Now new landlord Pari Dulac is challenging the sweetheart deal and claiming the old owner, who died in 2010, had dementia when it was allegedly signed.

“When I saw the lease, I couldn’t believe it,” said Dulac, a longtime Village resident. “I thought it was a joke.”

Wilfred Schuman, a German-born ballet dancer, had owned a pair of three-story town houses at 12 and 14 Minetta St. since 1993. He lived in the basement of 12 Minetta St.

According to the August 2009 lease, Parker and gal pal Stefanie Tyler pay just $10 a month for the 1,400-square-foot duplex at 14 Minetta St., which has two bedrooms and a back yard. The 50-year lease has a 10-year renewal option.

In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court Friday, Dulac claims Parker bamboozled Schuman, who was in his 70s — then subletted the apartment for $2,500 a month after his death.

The suit claims Parker manipulated Schuman into signing the lease or forged his signature.

[mykroar]

From what I understand, in cases like this they look at the reasonableness of the contract. $1000/month would have possibly held up, but it’s likely they’ll toss the contract.

[Libloather]

[Paladin2]

"then subletted the apartment for $2,500 a month after his death. "

There's an issue of equity.

[Don Corleone]

That’s Manhattan rent control for you.

[Lazamataz]

I would not pay ten bucks.

I might pay tree fiddy.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

People can be such self-serving, opportunistic jerks.

That said, my fervent prayer is that I NEVER have to live in a city larger than my current Cow Town. *SHUDDER*

[eyeamok]

From what I understand, in cases like this they look at the reasonableness of the contract

If that truly was the case, every Public Employee Pension in the US would have been dissolved by the courts already.

[SamAdams76]

That said, my fervent prayer is that I NEVER have to live in a city larger than my current Cow Town.

Where did that statement come from and what does this story have to do with justifying not wanting to live in a large city? The situation described here could just as easily happen in a small town.

It appears in this case that the tenants took advantage of an alcoholic mentally ill landlord but the real question here is why was this not discovered during the real estate transaction that transferred ownership to the new landlord? If I was purchasing rental real estate, I would want to know beforehand what my new tenants were currently paying and for how long their existing leases were for. A pretty elementary set of facts to know when purchasing real estate.

Either the new owner had a really crappy real estate lawyer or the tenant's "50 year lease" is fraudulent. Will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

[AFreeBird]

One other option: maybe he liked the guy and wanted to do him a solid. It’s been known to happen.

[oblomov]

“then subletted the apartment for $2,500 a month after his death. “

The sublessor must have dementia as well. $2500/month for a 1400 sq. ft. apartment in the West Village? It could be leased for 2 to 3 times that.

[Oliviaforever]

“That’s Manhattan rent control for you.”

Less than 2% of the housing units in NYC are under rent control.

That is not Manhattan rent control as the lease was signed by a landlord and tenant with out such regulation. The lease conveys to the new owner.

[GladesGuru]

Just another Neu Yuk Sh*ty denizen doing to another Neu Yukker what they do best.

[vbmoneyspender]

Maybe this has something to do with the $2,500 amount:

From the passage of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 to the Rent Act of 2011, rent stabilization was restricted to apartments where the legal, or stabilized, rent was under $2,000 per month. The 2011 law raised that to $2,500. The unit could be deregulated once the rent went above $2,000 under the 1997 law, $2,500 under the 2011 Act, and is either vacant or the household adjusted gross income was over $175,000 under the 1997 act or is $200,000 under the 2011 law, for two consecutive years.[13] If the stabilized rent is under $2,500, the residents' income does not affect the rent stabilized status of the apartment. A tenant has to use the stabilized apartment as their primary residence in order for the apartment to remain under rent stabilization.

[vbmoneyspender]

Isn’t it true that if you include ‘Rent Stabilized’ apartments as part of New York City’s rent control regimen, then approximately 45% of New York City apartments are rent controlled?

[vbmoneyspender]

[I]n 2011, New York City was home to 1,025,214 rent-regulated units, representing 47 percent of the city’s total rental housing stock, according to the 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey. The stock of rent-regulated units includes a relatively small number of rent-controlled units—approximately 38,000—but a much larger number of rent-stabilized units. Both units subject to rent control and units subject to rent stabilization fall under strict rules governing rent increases, obligations to provide services, and the circumstances under which tenants can be evicted.

[Oliviaforever]

The term used was “rent controlled.”

[vbmoneyspender]

I think most people who use the term ‘rent control’ in a plain English way rather than in a way defined by the New York City municipal code would consider what New York City calls ‘rent stabilized’ apartments to be ‘rent controlled’ apartments. So why split hairs? Unless, for some reason, you want to avoid the fact that New York City has a huge number of apartments where landlords are not free to raise rents as they see fit.

[vbmoneyspender]

Your comment was spot on. See comments 15 thru 18 for a clarification of how many New York City apartments are rent-controlled (i.e. it is approximately 47% of the New York City apartment market).