Posted by chelsea on July 31, 2001 at 19:30:38:
In Reply to: To be stabilized..or not to be... posted by Flash on July 31, 2001 at 18:52:31:
Is your rent over $2000? Or does it look as if there were major renovations just before you moved in?
If not, sounds as if someone's trying to pull a fast one. The burden would be on the landlord to show that it's no longer stabilized. You should seriously consider promptly filing an overcharge complaint at DHCR or in court. But don't delay, or you may lose out because of the four-year rule.
: That is the question...shouldn't it be written somewhere???
: LL says my new apartment is NOT rent stabilized, although it was rent-stabilized in 1998. I haven't asked the landlord to show reason why yet, as I don't want to piss them off...
: DHCR office guy says he sees no reason on his files why it would NOT be rent-stabilized...but shrugged cryptically at me, saying "...but that doesn't mean it's not..."
: Got the rent history report and reading through it...can't tell. Apartment status was listed as "RS" rent-stabilized in every year through 1998.
: 1999 and 2000 the apartment was vacant and the file just says "reg not found for subject premises".
: 2001 (for my lease) it says "V" for Vacant where the previous code was RS for Rent Stabilized...but I'm living there, so Vacant doesn't really make sense. And where it lists the legal rent, it says "AMT Miss"...
: Anyone out there that can translate this for me?
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup