---

Posted by dennis_nj on December 20, 2001 at 02:33:16:

In Reply to: Re: yo- here's your proof that ezt was right posted by duh? on December 18, 2001 at 23:54:07:

and what is that proof of? BZ said the guy had no rights: he has lots of them: RPL232-a proves EZT was right, not BZ.

: read it again: you must have misread it if you thought it proved BZ's 'no rights' remark........

i never said i agreed with the 'no rights' remark, i said, that a) the notice was not legal, and b) that the landlord can terminate on 30 days notice, and rpl 232a was the proof of the 30-day notice, which is what you just provided more verbiage to, and apparently agree with also.
but, 'no rights' is pretty close, compared to a rent-stabilized lease.

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: and what is that proof of?  BZ said the guy had no rights: he has lots of them: RPL232-a proves EZT was right, not BZ.

: : read it again: you must have misread it if you thought it proved BZ's 'no rights' remark........

: i never said i agreed with the 'no rights' remark, i said, that a) the notice was not legal, and b) that the landlord can terminate on 30 days notice, and rpl 232a was the proof of the 30-day notice, which is what you just provided more verbiage to, and apparently agree with also.
: but, 'no rights' is pretty close, compared to a rent-stabilized lease.
:  


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---