Posted by MikeW on May 29, 2001 at 13:38:54:
In Reply to: Guess that's what fraud will get ya posted by Vieo on May 29, 2001 at 00:56:15:
They could probably fight the eviction in housing court and get ruled that they they are the legal prime tenants and get stabilized leases. This would be a major and expensive fight, but could well be worth it.
: Why did the three tenants ever go for something like this ? Probably they thought they could get 'something for nothing' so they went along with the con. Now they get whacked instead ... that's what going along with a con will get ya.
: What happens now ? Who knows. They can either hunker down while all parties fight this out or they can seek out new abode. Let's hope they've learned their lesson and get a normal lease in their name only next time.
: : I'm a rent-stabilized tenant in an apartment in a 10-unit Manhattan
: : brownstone. Three occupants in the building hold fictitious sublets. The owner created the 'sublets' as a condition of renting their apartments to them. He has now notified all 3 of them (i) that the building has been sold, (ii) that the new owner plans to renovate it, and (iii) that they have to vacate their respective apartments at the end of their current 'subleases.' (To date the owner has not sent any notices to the regular tenants -- i.e., the ones that hold actual leases.)
: : My questions:
: : 1. What are the rights of these 'subtenants'? What course of action should they take to remain in their apartments? Do they have a statutory right to full tenancies based on the landlord's fabrication of illusory sublets?
: : 2. If the building really has been sold, can the new owners evict tenants (i.e., as well as subtenants) based on plans for renovations?
: : Thanks very much.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup