TenantNet Forum

Where tenants can seek help and help others



Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

NYC Rent Regulation: Rent Control/Rent Stabilized, DHCR Practice/Procedures

Moderator: TenantNet

Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby hirschma » Sat Apr 20, 2002 5:41 pm

I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on this clause that is attached to my lease in a rider:

"Tenant must obtain certification from the appropriate New York City Agency of the status as Artist in Residence in accordance with all applicable statutes, rules and regulations. In the event the Tenant fails to obtain said certification this lease shall be null and void ab initio and of no further force and effect."

My fiance signed the lease here, and was told that the clause really meant that artists had a right of first refusal on the property, and that if an artist demanded the property, we'd have to leave. Should an artist do this, we'd be refunded all rents paid.

This seems... very sketchy to me. Can someone give me details regarding this?

Thanks.

Jonathan
hirschma
 

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby NYHawk » Sun Apr 21, 2002 3:52 am

Lynn Armentrout is a New York City lawyer/dancer, who advertises on TenantNet, and specializes in representing artists.
NYHawk
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 2:01 am

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby marty » Sun Apr 21, 2002 9:13 am

What it means is the city has made special arraingmets with the landlord to offer licensed artists in residence a cheap rate on the rent, so if you and/or your finace are not licensed artists, then the lease will be voided and either you will be evicted or you will have to pay a much higher rent probably free market rates. and since you wont be able to afford it, you will have to vacate so a real artist can have affordable rent while they profect their craft.

And NO you cannot get any rent back, if fact if they try and evict you and you fight it and lose, you probably will have to pay the landlord's legal fees.
marty
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 1:01 am
Location: nyc

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby TenantNet » Sun Apr 21, 2002 9:51 am

Let's just ignore Marty. Chances are you're in a loft, or in Lower Manhattan (possibly Brooklyn). There are some districts protected as Artists Housing. Some buildings as well. The answer may be in the NYC Zoning Resolution or Loft Law (but don't have time to look it up now). Give us some more information.
The Tenant Network(tm) for Residential Tenants
Information from TenantNet is from experienced non-attorney tenant
activists and is not considered legal advice.

Subscribe to our Twitter Feed @TenantNet
TenantNet
 
Posts: 10306
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby lofter » Sun Apr 21, 2002 11:43 pm

This is not directly equal to "Artist in Residence", but "Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists" (JLWQA) is a designation that regulates occupants of lofts under the Loft Law; Certification of "Artists" by NYC is controlled by the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA).
Under the Loft Law occupants of living quarters in specific areas (i.e.: SoHo) under the Zoning Resolution (controlled by the Department of City Planning) must be "certified artists".
The original intention behind "artist certification" when the Loft Law was first created @ 1981 had a good basis: the areas such as SoHo where the new housing stock was created were zoned for "Manufacturing". The way that artists were able to get housing into that zoning was to declare themselves manufacturers of art - the point was to make sure that the new residents were not just well-to-do individials that thought it would be cool to have a big open space but, rather, were "manufacturers" in need of space to create their work.
So, legally, any prime tenant who has a residential loft lease in SoHo (minus a few exceptions on some arcane technicalities) MUST be a "certified artist".
You can find out how to get DCA certification from the NYC.gov website. The requirement allows for "creative" artists who can prove a body of work and a need for space (painters, sculptors, video, choregraphers, etc.). Certain types of creative folk, while they might indeed be artists, are not allowed because they are deemed "interpretive" rather than "creative" (i.e.: actors, singers, dancers, etc.)
According to research / input from lawyers in the know, the JLWQA requirement has rarely if ever been enforced or used to evict anyone, despite it being part of the law.
lofter
lofter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Manhattan

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby Cranky Tenant » Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:48 am

Originally posted by jonathan:
I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on this clause that is attached to my lease in a rider:

"Tenant must obtain certification from the appropriate New York City Agency of the status as Artist in Residence in accordance with all applicable statutes, rules and regulations. In the event the Tenant fails to obtain said certification this lease shall be null and void ab initio and of no further force and effect."

My fiance signed the lease here, and was told that the clause really meant that artists had a right of first refusal on the property, and that if an artist demanded the property, we'd have to leave. Should an artist do this, we'd be refunded all rents paid.

This seems... very sketchy to me. Can someone give me details regarding this?

Thanks.

Jonathan
I think the rider means exactly what it says.. that if you don't get certified the lease is void. Maybe the LL is willing to refund the deposit, but who ever heard of a LL willing refunding all rent paid?
I'm a cranky tenant NOT a cranky lawyer.
Cranky Tenant
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Manhattan

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby hirschma » Mon Apr 22, 2002 10:51 am

Originally posted by TenantNet:
Chances are you're in a loft, or in Lower Manhattan (possibly Brooklyn). Give us some more information.
OK, some more info...

The apartment is a unit in a building on Canal St. Neither my fiance nor me ever represented ourselves as artists - we're not - and we're not looking to get that kind of certification.

I was really trying to figure our legal status was - the way I read it, the lease is void, and we have no protection whatsoever, and we might as well as be month-to-monthers at this point.

Correct? That's how I read it.

jonathan
hirschma
 

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby lappert » Mon Apr 22, 2002 11:09 pm

Seems as if Lofter had the best information. Get the specifics. You might wish to check with the Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants for more info: lmlta.org (I think)
lappert
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby hirschma » Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:07 am

Originally posted by Fred Lappert:
Seems as if Lofter had the best information. Get the specifics. You might wish to check with the Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants for more info: lmlta.org (I think)
Lofter's opinion, although informative, is not helpful to me. What I really want to know is:

* Is my lease actually null and void? One opinion seems to think it is.

* Did my landlord do anything wrong by misrepresenting the situation? I think he committed fraud, frankly, by offering a lease that he knew would be void from the jump.

Thanks.

jonathan
hirschma
 

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby lappert » Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:29 am

What you're asking is for legal conclusions and no one on this board can give you a definitive answer. Questions like these raise certain issues which people have offered information and opinions. Whether a lease is valid or not would take a court to answer given that it would be in the context of a legal dispute. That may not even be the pertinent question and you need to decide if you wish to continue living there or not, and on what basis -- or how could you challenge any effort to have you move. Figure out what you want first. As to fraud, that's a catch-all and a term that many jump to. Whether or not there was a material misrepresentation, fraud is a criminal charge and you will not findthe DA prosecuting on something like this. Concentrate on your civil remedies -- after you figure out what you want to do. You should fully understand the issue first, doing the research and seeing how it plays out in the real world -- which is why contacting the loft tenants can get you started.
lappert
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
Location: New York City

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby lofter » Tue Apr 23, 2002 4:34 pm

Is your lease "null & void"?
Not a lawyer, don't know.
However...
You are the legal occupant of the place (loft?) and the owner rented to you -- which does give you some legal protections.
It really depends what you want.
If what you want is to void the rest of the lease term, then you might be able to do so (on what legal grounds would the owner have to hold you to the lease if the unit had the 'Certified Artist' requirement per Zoning?).
Are you worried that the owner is going to cancel the lease on you mid-term? Like I said before, there seems to be no precedent for an owner removing an occupant for lack of 'certification'. And there probably aren't too many housing court judges who would want to put themselves out on that legal limb and kick out a tenant solely due to the lack of 'certification'.
Do you want to leave and get reimnbursed for the months you lived there and paid rent? Doubt you would ever get that previously-paid rent returned (or even part of the months' rent) in housing court.
On the other hand...if it benefits the owner to have you leave the place now (for whatever reason) then it might be in the owner's interest to negotiate with you and, thereby, you might be able to get some money out of it.
A question about your Canal Street building: Does it have a DOB issued "Certificate of Occupancy" that specifically allows for residential use? (you can find this out by using the public access computer terminals at DOB 60 Hudson Street 5th Floor -- not too far from your Cananl Street place).
If NOT, then the owner MAY NOT (stress MAY NOT) be entitled to collect rent. This pertains to the loft law and court rulings that have come down in that regard. Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants (http://www.lmlt.org/) or the Live-Work Coalition (http://www.brooklynlivework.org/) might be helpful.
Previous poster Fred Lippert has good points. Also be aware that there are lots of units / lofts/ apartments (whatever you want to call them) where people are living / paying rent and the owner hasn't taken the necessary steps to allow for residential use. I don't know of any of those owners that have been taken to court on the basis of 'fraud'.
Also be aware that if the owner doesn't want you there despite your lease and the owner is willing to fight you (meaning pay a lawyer) then it could cost you LOADS of money in legal fees (our building w/~15 units have tallied up over $100,000.00 in lawyers fees over the past 20+ years!!
But we're still in our homes because the law protects us. :)
lofter
lofter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Manhattan

Re: Artist in Residence Weirdness in Lease

Postby hirschma » Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:54 pm

This thread has given me a lot to think about. As far as what I want - I really want to know my rights, to find out just how easy the landlord can get rid of me, and what my recourse will be if the landlord attempts this.

The unit we're in is very nice, but there are some problems. I want to push for resolution, but I don't want to be pushed out with the trash, either.

Thanks to everyone for their help here.

jonathan
hirschma
 


Return to NYC Rent Regulated Apartments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests