Google Search

TenantNet Forum Archives 1996-2002
Posting and Replies are disabled in all Archives
TenantNet Forum | TenantNet Forum Archives Index

Re: question clarification

Posted by consigliere on January 25, 2002 at 09:01:06:

In Reply to: question clarification posted by Jen on January 25, 2002 at 08:23:05:

Most contracts, including leases, usually have a clause that says that the contract includes all the terms and conditions. Courts look to the "four corners" of the agreement -- not to parol evidence.

Most leases also have a no-waiver clause, which says that the landlord's ignoring a default or not enforcing a lease provision is not to be considered a waiver of the provisions of the lease.

There's a pet law that covers pets and there's a roommate law that covers roommates. In your situation, the roommate law says that, if your lease limits the occupancy to the named tenant, you still have the right to have family members, ONE roommate, and the dependent children of the roommate.

If the rent is so high, the apartment is large, and the building and apartment need so many repairs, why didn't you at least insist that the lease be changed to eliminate the clause that restricts occupancy to the named tenant before you signed the lease?

: The core issue seems to be the fact that the managing agent knew full well that not "ONLY PERSONS NAMED ON THIS LEASE" would live there. Shouldn't that make that section void? Or like a no pet clause...openly and notoriously having roommmates for a certain length of time makes them allowed?

: Fact of the matter is, it's a 3BR apt. (the LL doesn't want more people on the lease b/c there's very likely an overcharge case coming and the more people suing her/being entitles to this (probably) RS apt. the worse) so it's either roommates or a family, and this apt. is not safe for children. No one would live here with fewer people b/c for the same money they could get a better 1-2 BR in a better neighborhood.

: Furthermore - not that it really pertains to the question but there are all manner of violations in the building and sketchy details in the apt. (like holes in the wall where electrical sockets were pulled out, a hole through the floor next to a radiator, and a floor that would give you splinters if you walked on it barefoot)

: Anyone know anything about the first question though?

Follow Ups:

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 
Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL:


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information | Contact Us
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws |

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name