---

Posted by Mark Smith on August 10, 1999 at 09:27:51:

In Reply to: Re: Latest in the 'Holdover Ordeal' posted by Anna on August 09, 1999 at 22:51:39:

While I essentially agree with Anna, you do have
legal standing under RPAPL §721 against the
existing tenant to go to housing court to evict
him. I wrote that in another thread. However,
that could be very expensive, and you would be
unlikely to recover those expenses.

It isn't clear if the landlord has informed you,
in writing, about the status of the availability
of the apartment. Your lease should address this issue, with specific time frames. See what your
choices are: wait, or demand that the lease be
cancelled and get your money back.

The landlord appears to have gone to housing
court to get an index number. The process server could start trying to serve the papers
immediately. But the tenant isn't holding over
at the expiration of the one-year lease term.

Did the tenant write to the landlord and request
that the lease be cancelled? Did the landlord
accept, in writing? It doesn't sound like it,
because you indicated that the landlord is
proceeding against the tenant because of his two
dogs. Did the landlord give the tenant a proper
written Notice to Cure (remove the dogs)?

If the lease prohibits pets, the city's pet law
could present problems for the landlord. If the
lease permits pets, or if the pet law applies,
the landlord would have to prove that the dogs
are objectionable. Even if the court finds in
favor of the landlord, the tenant would still have the opportunity to cure by getting rid of the dogs [RPAPL §753(4)]. And the tenant would still have the right to appeal, and as I have said before, that could take another year.

Anna wrote, in relevant part:

: I think he will be there for at least this
month, probably 3 months, maybe until the end of
his lease...

: Your prospective 'landlord' jumped the gun, it
should pay all extra expenses (good luck trying).
: You probably have no legal standing in this
matter: that is, noth

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: While I essentially agree with Anna, you do have 
: legal standing under RPAPL §721 against the 
: existing tenant to go to housing court to evict 
: him.  I wrote that in another thread.  However, 
: that could be very expensive, and you would be 
: unlikely to recover those expenses.  

: It isn't clear if the landlord has informed you, 
: in writing, about the status of the availability 
: of the apartment.  Your lease should address this issue, with specific time frames.  See what your 
: choices are: wait, or demand that the lease be 
: cancelled and get your money back.

: The landlord appears to have gone to housing 
: court to get an index number.  The process server could start trying to serve the papers 
: immediately.  But the tenant isn't holding over 
: at the expiration of the one-year lease term.  

: Did the tenant write to the landlord and request 
: that the lease be cancelled?  Did the landlord 
: accept, in writing?  It doesn't sound like it, 
: because you indicated that the landlord is 
: proceeding against the tenant because of his two 
: dogs.  Did the landlord give the tenant a proper 
: written Notice to Cure (remove the dogs)?

: If the lease prohibits pets, the city's pet law 
: could present problems for the landlord.  If the 
: lease permits pets, or if the pet law applies, 
: the landlord would have to prove that the dogs 
: are objectionable.  Even if the court finds in 
: favor of the landlord, the tenant would still have the opportunity to cure by getting rid of the dogs [RPAPL §753(4)].  And the tenant would still have the right to appeal, and as I have said before, that could take another year.

: 
: Anna wrote, in relevant part:

: : I think he will be there for at least this 
: month, probably 3 months, maybe until the end of 
: his lease...

: : Your prospective 'landlord' jumped the gun, it 
: should pay all extra expenses (good luck trying). 
: : You probably have no legal standing in this 
: matter: that is, noth


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---