---

Posted by Mark Smith on July 25, 2000 at 01:54:14:

In Reply to: Re: Lease error? Need help. Please respond!!!!! posted by Phil on July 25, 2000 at 00:02:51:

Phil wrote: "Simple--if the landlord really made a huge mistake, then I should sign a two-year lease at the lower rent!!!!! If I sign a two year lease, and he can restore the rent at some point, then I get socked with a 6% increase."

These two sentences are inconsistent. You might want to check the DHCR decisions on TenantNet to see whether this issue has ever been addressed. DHCR hasn't made its more recent decisions readily available, but this is a starting point.

I still think that the lower maximum rent in the new lease is binding on the landlord, even if services are restored.

If the landlord might restore services and if the rent could be raised for the restoration of services only after the lease expires, then a two-year lease might be better. But I still believe that a one-year lease would be the wiser economic choice.

: :
: : I agree with everything EGH wrote.

: : And I don't understand how being offered a lower rent really affects Phil's decision between a one-year renewal lease and a two-year renewal. The one-year lease is generally the better choice.

: Simple--if the landlord really made a huge mistake, then I should sign a two-year lease at the lower rent!!!!!
: If I sign a two year lease, and he can restore the rent at some point, then I get socked with a 6% increase.
: I guess my remaining question is whether I'm going to get embroiled in a court battle that isn't worth the trouble. I'm already paying the lower rent and there is no sign he is going to restore services.

Follow Ups:

• This is confusing, I know..... phil 07/25/00 (2)
  • Re: This is confusing, I know..... EGH 07/25/00 (1)
    • Re: This is confusing, I know..... phil 07/26/00 (0)

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: Phil wrote: "Simple--if the landlord really made a huge mistake, then I should sign a two-year lease at the lower rent!!!!!  If I sign a two year lease, and he can restore the rent at some point, then I get socked with a 6% increase."  

: These two sentences are inconsistent.  You might want to check the DHCR decisions on TenantNet to see whether this issue has ever been addressed.  DHCR hasn't made its more recent decisions readily available, but this is a starting point.  

: I still think that the lower maximum rent in the new lease is binding on the landlord, even if services are restored.  

: If the landlord might restore services and if the rent could be raised for the restoration of services only after the lease expires, then a  two-year lease might be better.  But I still believe that a one-year lease would be the wiser economic choice.

: : :
: : : I agree with everything EGH wrote.  

: : : And I don't understand how being offered a lower rent really affects Phil's decision between a one-year renewal lease and a two-year renewal.  The one-year lease is generally the better choice.  

: : Simple--if the landlord really made a huge mistake, then I should sign a two-year lease at the lower rent!!!!!
: : If I sign a two year lease, and he can restore the rent at some point, then I get socked with a 6% increase.
: : I guess my remaining question is whether I'm going to get embroiled in a court battle that isn't worth the trouble. I'm already paying the lower rent and there is no sign he is going to restore services.


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---