Posted by Chelsea on September 09, 2000 at 09:49:25:
In Reply to: Re: Certificate of Occupancy posted by the president on September 08, 2000 at 21:26:14:
Stop scare-mongering, Presidente, or we'll have to start an impeachment drive. There's rarely reason to fear eviction over a certificate of occupancy in New York City.
In the first place, the Buildings Department is extremely reluctant to act even in cases of serious violations. Inefficiency? Understaffing? Collusion with landlords? You make the call. And if there is cause to act, the Buildings Departments is supposed get a building owner to correct the violation, rather than oust tenants. True, there have been a few well publicized exceptions, but these seem to be personal or political vendattas of one sort or another. Inaction is far more likely than eviction.
In the case described by Lamar, however, there doesn't appear to be a violation. The form reads "the following fire detection and extinguishing systems are required AND were installed in compliance with applicable laws." My reading of that is the measures are not required, and not installed. I believe these fire safety requirements are a function of the construction classification, such as 3non-fireproof, directly above it on the form.
The really crucial part of the certificate of occupancy is the front part. Does it correctly describe the current state of the building, with the right number of stories, the right number of apartments and residential use?
: there is an old chinese proverb that goes something like this " be careful what you wish for"...... in this case you will get more than a rent abatement.... the building will be closed and you will be in the street..........
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup