Posted by Anna on February 03, 1999 at 09:06:46:
In Reply to: Re: Rent-Stab Coop Confusion: RPAPL 721.1. posted by DK on February 02, 1999 at 12:47:46:
Sorry: I'll start over. I also have new info.
Who owns the shares today? I don't know yet.....
When I moved in, my rent-stabilized lease was with the previous owner of the building. He sold
the building to a corporation which converted it to a coop in a non-eviction plan. I did not
purchase the shares to my apt, nor did any outsider. Since the plan was declared effective, all
parties (the coop directors, the Sponsor's office staff, and I) have consistently spoken &
behaved as if the Sponsor (a corporation) still owns the unsold shares to my apt. Except for the
paperwork!: the name on rent bills & renewal lease offers remained that of the Coop
Corporation: the Sponsor's office said they would "look into it, correct it" but did not. The
Sponsor's office cashed the checks & signed the offers. Then the name on the rent bills &
renewal offers changed, not to the Sponsor's name, but to a name that looks like a real person's
name, mailed from the same office. I received no notification of a sale or transfer of the shares,
and no explanation from the Sponsor's office when I inquired; however, an outsider suggested a
transfer was required to comply with an IRS code. I was afraid of eviction, so I signed it. There
is a current, signed offer to renew lease with this "Human Person" (sidebar: they have never
sent an actual renewal leases, just the signed offers).
Why risk eviction now by withholding rent? HPD Violations Class A, B, & C, on the record, for
starters.
The Sponsor reduced services and repairs when it first bought the building. The Coop and the
Sponsor reduced them even more after it was declared effective. Not just cleanliness, but heat
& hot water, vermin control, fire & physical safety (broken lights, broken locks: intruders broke
into building at least seven times), etc. And the usual response to repair requests was either
NO or 'it's the other guy's job'. Later the response included harassment, retaliation was added
after I reported only 3 conditions to HPD. After I stopped paying rent, I discovered that their
actions violated many laws/codes: MDL, HMC, RSC, Building Code, Fire Code, Martin Act,
etc.
_______
Back to my question: who is allowed to sue me for the unpaid rent & what documents do they
need to prove it? The pro se attorney did not know.... (the Coop is not yet a third party in the
lawsuit. My defenses & counterclaims do exceed the unpaid rent, but I'm pro se & might not
succeed in all of them. & yes: legal fees exceed the unpaid rent)
Only the Sponsor's name is on the Petition.
Only the Human Person's name and the Office name are on the Offer to Renew the Lease and
the unpaid Rent Bills.
New: The Office of the Attorney General said that if the shares were transferred/sold from the
Sponsor to anyone else, there must be an Amendment to the Offering Plan. And also that
whoever owns the shares is the "landlord". I don't expect to get anything on paper from them
before the next court date.....
The RPAPL 721.1 question/problem as I understand it:
3. If only the Sponsor is the "landlord": that one item on the Petition is good, but all those Lease
Renewals are not, so there is no landlord-tenant relationship. A fatal defect?
2. If only the Human Person is the "landlord", the Petitioner's name is wrong. A fatal defect?
1. Is it possible for for both to be "landlord" in a non-payment lawsuit & how? If so, the name
problem is not a fatal defect, just one of many correctable incorrect pieces of data on the
Petition an 3-day Demand. (rant: doesn't an attorney's affirmation mean anything anymore??)
Follow Ups:
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup