Unless I missed it in the article, it didn't say that the apartment was damaged in the collapse. Manhattan is a place where the housing market is so tight that people scan the death notices to look for available apartments! I just find it very hard to believe that this apartment would be 1) unoccupied, 2) have working utilities (it may have been cold, but the author had a space heater going), and 3) be easily occupied by the author.
And one other thing -- there is rent control in New York, which means that people living in palatial apartments for many years can be paying a pittance in rent, but rent control does not go into effect until after you rent a place. This gives the apartment owner even more incentive to get an apartment on the market, as he'll be able to charge hundreds a month more than he would to longtime tenants. In summary, there are way too many holes in this writer's story; it's a good thing she published it in a British newspaper as it wouldn't make it past a Manhattan editor's bs detector!
I just figured that the reason they were wandering around that neighborhood giving away money was that there was damage caused in the area. Perhaps you should post a letter to the editor of the Telegraph, asking for clarification, or telling them that it doesn't pass the smell test.