Posted on 06/14/2012 7:56:50 AM PDT by JoeProBono
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – How would you like to not pay your rent, year after year, and get away with it?
A Brooklyn woman has done just that for the past six years.
Artist Margaret Maugenest, 60, stopped paying rent for several years, but instead of getting evicted, the state’s highest court said she was justified, CBS 2′s John Slattery reported.
“Yeah, I feel very good about that, John. I feel very relieved,” Maugenest told Slattery.
Since 1984, Maugenest has lived in a loft — a converted manufacturing building on Nevins Street in Gowanus – with rent of less than 600 a month.
Several years ago, however, Maugenest began withholding rent because over no maintenance and safety concerns.
“The wooden pillars in the basement were rotting,” Maugenest said.
Under the city’s 1982 Loft Law, former commercial buildings could be rented to residential tenants if safety issues were met. But this tenant says a gas leak in the building wasn’t fixed — it was just shut off.
“We didn’t have gas for about a year-and-a-half,” Maugenest said. “That meant I couldn’t cook.”
She also said she had no hot water.
After six years of non-payment with the landlord trying to evict her, she was forced to pay 2 1/2 years of court-ordered rent. The landlord won two lower rulings, but now, the state’s highest court said that since the landlord missed deadlines for building improvement, there’s no eviction, and back rent can’t be collected.
The landlord’s lawyer, David Berger, counsel for Chazon LLC, citing an overburdened Loft Board, said, “”The result is that the tenant may live rent free in a very large apartment, that she obviously feels safe in, under the guise that she is just trying to get the Landlord to make her apartment safe, with no end or limit.”
Maugenest gets to keep the back rent for the past 6 1/2 years which amounts to roughly $35,000.
Artist = bum
“I really can not find it in myself to care in any way shape or form what some idiot who thinks no gas or hot water (in a city that gets to thirteen below zero in winter) thinks about anything.”
Yep, it was so bad she could barely survive SIX years of it!
According to the New York City housing code, windowless rooms can can't technically be classified as a bedroom (although, of course, people flout that rule all the time).
That being said, The law states that the owner/landlord is required to do repair on the building. A building without gas and with structural damage is the responsibility of the landlord to repair. If he is unable to repair the damage himself, he should hire someone to repair building for his tenants.
She not only had the right to with hold the rent, she had a responsibility to do so in order to force the landlord to remedy the situation. If the landlord can afford a lawyer for several years of litigation, he could afford to repair the building and maintain adequate facilities for the rent he agreed upon.
So if you are living in an apartment that you say has rotting structures and no heat/hot water, wouldn’t these be serious code violations that would cause the city of NY to make you leave the building for your own safety?
There is no indication that this apartment is rent controlled. In fact, according to the article, this woman moved into the apartment in 1984, which means that the apartment can't be rent controlled (in NYC, rent control only applies when an occupant has lived continuously in the apartment since 1970 or 1971).
The health department should have moved her out long ago and declared the place inhabitable.
And I maintain, that her withholding of the rent was a forced continuation of a rental agreement that likely would not have been renewed had her withholding action not been in force. So in my mind, her rent may have been reasonable in 1984, but nowhere near reasonable in 2012. She had no right to expect to continue to pay that price. She evidently talked to a smart lawyer who told her what to do.
It was defacto rent controlled by her action of withholding rent for defects and non-maintenance. Had this not been the case, the LL would have been increasing the rent but likely could not because of her action.
Are you kidding me? That amounts to $448.72 per MONTH! For a loft?!!! In NYC?!!!!!
I paid twice that for a 900 sf. apartment in central New Jersey 18 years ago.
Rent control is absolultely criminal. She should be paying that rent every month with a big fat smile on her stupid face.
And the slumlord got what they paid for. They didn’t bother to maintain the building, so the government didn’t bother to collect back rent through the power of the state.
What went around, came back around.
Have it your way, then....I’d have evicted her the first month she didn’t pay rent....wait, she probably didn’t pay the rent, and added the diminished living conditions on advice of her scumbag lawyer.....if you can honestly tell me $600/month in 2012 for what looks like at least over 1000 square feet, even in the Bronx, isn’t a steal, then I’ll shut up. You don’t live somewhere for two decades because you like living like a caveman (according to her).
Had the landlord addressed and corrected the p[problems, she would have been forced to make restitution in the form of back rent and interest. As is the case, the landlord was forced to accept zero rent for several years totaling 35K as restitution to the renter of the property. He has also been orderred to correct any problems.
She used the only recourse available to her, with holding rent. That is a moral and legal way to handle a reluctant landlord in almost any area of the country.
In fact, he'd probably agree that if you want to have residential and industrial properties butt up against each other there probably ought to be some agreed upon rules for doing that.
You might ask him next time you see him.
In this case we had a change of use from industrial to residential. The guy got the zoning to agree to the change and he prepared the property for rental to residential occupants.
NYC does not now nor has it ever allowed folks to just throw up what they wanted to throw up ~ and I mean EVER. When they built the Wall at Wall Street if you wanted to live North of the Wall they wouldn't come to help you when the Indians attacked. So everybody lived South of the Wall.
So, that's New York City. They can and do deny services, and zoning, unless you agree to certain stipulations ~ one is that you make your building safe ~ they don't want them simply falling over like urban ruins in an ancient abandoned city. That damages your neighbor's property rights for one thing, and it might kill someone. Better a little safety now than a dead guy's heirs calling for your head eh! I think even Walter would end up on my side in any debate about building codes ~ as would virtually all building owners.
Ever been to New York City? When you go think about how the owner of one of those buildings would feel if the city let the guy next door mismanage his building and it fell down into your building.
Now, out in East Central Oklahoma, there's plenty of land so you could put these things up all over the place a half mile apart and nobody would care, probably not even if one of them fell over. As long as it didn't scare the livestock that'd be OK.
As much as some people would like, you can't have a large city like New York City that runs in a state of nature. You must have the rule of law ~ and some rather precise zoning and land use controls. They already went through those days and had horse manure piled up in the streets such that wagons were difficult to draw and people wore mufflers to avoid choking on the dust.
This guy agreed to do business in New York City according to their laws. He violated the law. He should not profit from that.
I’m done with this. Not worth arguing about.
He sue screwed up this time didn't he.
You get used to it.
My uncle rented out half of his duplex in Pittsburgh to a couple who just quit paying their rent. When he moved to evict them Family Legal Aid gave them a free attorney (my uncle had to pay for his). This dragged on and on and they ended up living there close to 2 years for free. Eventually they moved out voluntarily and for other reasons...the legal system made no effort to force them to go. And they never paid the back rent or utilities.
After regaining control of the place my uncle found evidence of massive drug activities going on in there. Oh, and the deadbeat family had some ties to a Democrat member of the City Council. I’m sure that did not help matters.
I grew up in Indiana and I've seen more than my fair share of rental trailers that just burned down after the tenant moved out.
All in all that standard is just a scam to fool the insurance companies.
I suspect this loft was rented at an above market rate!
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.