Posted on 11/09/2014 10:44:15 AM PST by lowbridge
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.
There's an issue of equity.
That’s Manhattan rent control for you.
I might pay tree fiddy.
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*
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.
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.
One other option: maybe he liked the guy and wanted to do him a solid. It’s been known to happen.
“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.
“Thats 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.
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?
The term used was “rent controlled.”
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.
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).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.