Posted by richard on January 24, 1999 at 12:44:45:
I would appreciate some suggestions on something we are thinking of
1. Re: 319 West LLC v. Rojas
In your notes, you asked the tenants to "put up a good fight"
regarding the loophole, or silent treatment of committing LL fraud by
never registering an apartment or never registering the rent. What I am
arguing with my attorney (and I am a beginner ..first job ...as a
paralegal) is that the four year rule could also mean a commercial
tenant, a family member, a superintendent , vacant, or even an illegal
sublet, as long as the owner registers the apt as exempt.
Also reading the way they calculated the new rent while the new
tenant still has the right to a FMRA they took away the "teeth" in how
they calculated the rent before, such as the old rent, vacancy
increases, yearly increases, and renovations, now it is only the rent
agreed upon by the parties and if it is registered with DHCR..........do
you think that is a fair assessment of the problem???
2. Re: Myers v. Frankel
In your notes you said " it eviscerates all overcharges the minute
files the registration statements", do you mean it also effectively
eliminates the FMRA because of the retro-active part of the RRRA 1997??
see above (we are in the same situation, our apt is still not
registered) ..Or are we entitled to a FMRA based upon the law as it
would have been applied on the date we commenced occupancy May 1,1995
had the apartment been registered and we were given proper notice to
file a FMRA?
3. Re Daniel v.NYS DHCR
You made a comment "(the court essentially found the converse is
true- an unregistered rent is subject to challenge after four years)"
But again what if the apartment is not registered, and has been
considered exempt for 23 years???
I really would appreciate any comments, hints, cases, to help me
defend my position, as I am looking at this as a scam artist, can
this be pulled off, that seems to be Dangerfield's position that the
retro-active element of the RRRA 1997, mean the rent we agreed upon in
1995 is the legal rent and there is no overcharge and I am not entitled
to a FMRA due to the change in the law.....(they are not exactly saying
that, but they infer thats their position).
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup