---

Posted by Gwen on August 03, 2001 at 20:02:02:

In Reply to: Re: Roommate Law posted by Gwen on August 03, 2001 at 19:56:09:

Just went to TenantNet homepage and found the answers to the pet question... Should have looked there first.

: No, I was not asking for higher rent, just an additional deposit at the request of my landlord. The new sublease would have been mainly to cover that additional depost because technically we didn't need to add the roommate to the lease for 'money reasons' since the rent was pre-paid. We presented the additional deposit option as a good-faith gesture on the part of the original sublesee. Again, probably not enforceable. It was meant not to get more money out of him, (a DEPOSIT not a fee), just to be very clear about the situation as well as assuage some fears that were caused by the guy not being straight with us.

: So, what I glean from all this is that it is possible to give the tenant "greater rights" than the minimum allowed by law. Is the landlord ever entitled to "greater rights"? I'm getting the feeling that the only real 'right' a landlord has is essentially to be paid for the use of the property. Am I simplifying this too much or is this the basic idea?

: I'm actually even more curious about this as a tenant since I'm pretty much over being a landlord. Forgive the odd leap but, I understand that a landlord can prohibit pets/animals (but not people other than those above and beyond what is allowed by the law!). Is this correct? I have a dog & 2 cats and have trouble finding apartments that allow pets. I'm suddenly curious since this is a tenant board, after all. Is there a law allowing landlord's to prohibit pets or is this a case of a landlord having "greater rights"?

:
: : Your sublease contains an invalid clause prohibitting a roommate. Unless a lease (or a sublease) gives greater rights, the sole party to a lease has the right to have his immediate family and ONE roommate, plus the dependent children of that roommate, occupy the premises.

: : See Real Property Law §235-f at http://www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/RPL/rpl07.txt.

: : In your original message, you wrote that you were willing to allow the roommate to remain, if the sublessee signed a new sublease (at a higer rent?), with an increased deposit. This looks like "it's not the principle, it's the money."

: : You are now the landlord -- and the tenant -- of this apartment. If a sublessee doesn't move out at the end of a sublease, the sublessor will have to go to housing court to evict the sublessee, and/or the landlord may go to housing court to evict the tenant and the sublessee. These are the risks of being a landlord or a sublessor.
: :  

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: Just went to TenantNet homepage and found the answers to the pet question...  Should have looked there first.

: : No, I was not asking for higher rent, just an additional deposit at the request of my landlord.  The new sublease would have been mainly to cover that additional depost because technically we didn't  need to add the roommate to the lease for 'money reasons' since the rent was pre-paid.  We presented the additional deposit option as a good-faith gesture on the part of the original sublesee.  Again, probably not enforceable. It was meant not to get more money out of him, (a DEPOSIT not a fee), just to be very clear about the situation as well as assuage some fears that were caused by the guy not being straight with us. 

: : So, what I glean from all this is that it is possible to give the tenant "greater rights" than the minimum allowed by law.  Is the landlord ever entitled to "greater rights"?  I'm getting the feeling that the only real 'right' a landlord has is essentially to be paid for the use of the property.  Am I simplifying this too much or is this the basic idea?

: :  I'm actually even more curious about this as a tenant since I'm pretty much over being a landlord.  Forgive the odd leap but, I understand that a landlord can prohibit pets/animals (but not people other than those above and beyond what is allowed by the law!).  Is this correct?  I have a dog & 2 cats and have trouble finding apartments that allow pets. I'm suddenly curious since this is a tenant board, after all.  Is there a law allowing landlord's to prohibit pets or is this a case of a  landlord having "greater rights"? 

: : 
: : : Your sublease contains an invalid clause prohibitting a roommate.  Unless a lease (or a sublease) gives greater rights, the sole party to a lease has the right to have his immediate family and ONE roommate, plus the dependent children of that roommate, occupy the premises.  

: : : See Real Property Law §235-f at http://www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/RPL/rpl07.txt.  

: : : In your original message, you wrote that you were willing to allow the roommate to remain, if the sublessee signed a new sublease (at a higer rent?), with an increased deposit.  This looks like "it's not the principle, it's the money."  

: : : You are now the landlord -- and the tenant -- of this apartment.  If a sublessee doesn't move out at the end of a sublease, the sublessor will have to go to housing court to evict the sublessee, and/or the landlord may go to housing court to evict the tenant and the sublessee.  These are the risks of being a landlord or a sublessor.  
: : :  



Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---