---

Posted by DK on February 03, 1999 at 18:15:31:

In Reply to: Re: Rent-Stab Coop Confusion: RPAPL 721.1. posted by Anna on February 03, 1999 at 09:06:46:

The revised version of your posting is much clearer.

Rule 1: Don't forget your goal.(or "Keep your eye on the ball!") You have indicated that you began withholding rent to obtain repairs and services. Remember that this is your primary objective. You may also be interested in getting compensation for past problems. That is also a worthy goal. Getting this proceeding dismissed on a technicality does not really advance either of these two goals, except that it wears down your landlord. (It may wear you down as well.)

The petitioner in a summary proceeding to recover possession must be your landlord. In this case, that will be the person or entity which owns the shares and proprietary lease for your apartment. The petitioner will have to prove ownership by presenting an original or certified copy of the proprietary lease. If the proprietary lease was issued or assigned to an individual who is not the petitioner, then the court will probably dismiss the proceeding unless you consent to allow the landlord to amend the petition to identify the true petitioner. Do you want the petition dismissed? The correct landlord will just start over again. If your goal is repairs and a rent abatement, aren't you better served by just going ahead and finishing the trial.

There are other factors that might influence your decision. The threat of dismissal might make the landlord more generous in a settlement offer. If you don't like the trial judge, you can escape by insisting on dismissal.

Based on the fact pattern which you described, it is probable that the sponsor, or an entity controlled by the sponsor acquired the shares and lease to your apartment when the plan was declared effective and closed. The Internal Revenue Code only permits pass through of the tax deductions if the unsold shares are acquired by individuals within a certain time.

I don't see how it makes much difference whether you are paying rent to the entity or person which is actually named on the proprietary lease or an agent of that entity. Your rights as a rent stabilized tenant are fully protected either way. Of course, you have a legal right to insist that any entity or person which is seeking rent from you prove that it, he or she actually owns the apartment.

Good luck. I hope you achieve your goal!

Follow Ups:

---

Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: The revised version of your posting is much clearer. 

: Rule 1: Don't forget your goal.(or "Keep your eye on the ball!") You have indicated that you began withholding rent to obtain repairs and services. Remember that this is your primary objective. You may also be interested in getting compensation for past problems. That is also a worthy goal. Getting this proceeding dismissed on a technicality does not really advance either of these two goals, except that it wears down your landlord. (It may wear you down as well.)

: The petitioner in a summary proceeding to recover possession must be your landlord. In this case, that will be the person or entity which owns the shares and proprietary lease for your apartment. The petitioner will have to prove ownership by presenting an original or certified copy of the proprietary lease. If the proprietary lease was issued or assigned to an individual who is not the petitioner, then the court will probably dismiss the proceeding unless you consent to allow the landlord to amend the petition to identify the true petitioner. Do you want the petition dismissed? The correct landlord will just start over again. If your goal is repairs and a rent abatement, aren't you better served by just going ahead and finishing the trial.

: There are other factors that might influence your decision. The threat of dismissal might make the landlord more generous in a settlement offer. If you don't like the trial judge, you can escape by insisting on dismissal.

: Based on the fact pattern which you described, it is probable that the sponsor, or an entity controlled by the sponsor acquired the shares and lease to your apartment when the plan was declared effective and closed. The Internal Revenue Code only permits pass through of the tax deductions if the unsold shares are acquired by individuals within a certain time.

: I don't see how it makes much difference whether you are paying rent to the entity or person which is actually named on the proprietary lease or an agent of that entity. Your rights as a rent stabilized tenant are fully protected either way. Of course, you have a legal right to insist that any entity or person which is seeking rent from you prove that it, he or she actually owns the apartment.

: Good luck. I hope you achieve your goal!


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: 

---