Landlord rights?

best to contact a lawyer .

I can't speak to the part about their refusal to pay rent, but what exactly is the motivating factor for the tenants to move? The $5,000 your mother offered them? Are the units occupied by the tenants rent stabilized, because if they are, your mother's payout is what's commonly referred to as "chump change". I can assure you that in a booming real estate market with a lack of affordable housing, as such exists in Park Slope, a rent stabilized unit is of far greater value than the 5 grand offered by your mom to make the tenants disappear. And let's assume the units are NOT rent stabilized...a lease is a two way street. Unless there's some provision in it regarding the sale of the building and an agreement by the tenants to vacate when such a sale occurs, it would seem to me that the tenants are within their rights to remain in the apartment for the duration of their lease.

Can't she sell the building with the tenants inside?

The most telling statement in your original post was when you said, "She gave her 2 tenants 3 months notice and offered them each $5000 to move." If it's a rent stabilized apartment, and there is no lease, then the act of issuing a notice to vacate was quite illegal. Your intent with this entire topic was to garner sympathy for the plight of the hardworking landlords who buy and take care of their buildings. If anything, your mother's actions expose her as the opposite; a landlord who values the dollar above the laws of New York State. We're all supposed to feel very bad about the fact that your mother can no longer afford the mortgage, and hasn't paid into social security insurance and this money represents all she has, but what about the tenants. Let's assume for a moment that they had vacated their apartments based on your mother's "notice". What happens to THEM? Somehow, I doubt that it would have bothered your mother too much that she had done something illegal, so long as she got away with it and was able to sell her house in the process.

Of course, the big $5,000 pay off was supposed to have them bolting for the door, but they didn't take it. And now you are asking how much is a fair amount? How about this....$5,000 will allow them to live for 5 months in a new apartment. And that's assuming that they, by some miracle, find a comparable apartment in Park Slope for $1,000 a month. They were smart to retain lawyers and if you ask me, $80,000 is lowballing what they could really get. If they were to vacate the premises and the apartments become de-controlled, the value of your mother's building rises exponentially. And that is why offering the tenants a ridiculously low sum to vacate an building whose value will rise substantially following their departure, is a joke. As GradonIV said, your mother's offer will not even cover a half year of rent.

And if I may ask, why is your mother paranoid about putting the building on the market?

My sympathies automatically default to the landlord in most cases like this, but the part about the mother being too paranoid to put the building on the market largely eliminates that sympathy. If she's too "paranoid" (sorry, but let's just say too foolish) to look for the best deal she can get in a red-hot real estate market, then she deserves whatever fate she gets. Also, while there may be very good reasons for her financial predicament, her inability to save for her retirement is not the fault of the tenants.

Also, is it common to have rent-stabilized places, or any rentals for that matter, with no lease? If there's no lease, then what's the legal evidence for the base rent from which it can be raised at a stabilized rate? What prevents the landlord from simply terminating the lease at will and forcing eviction with no compensation whatsoever?

Anyway, tell your mom to put the unit on the market!

I have lived in my rent stabilized apartment in mid-slope for 12 years. I was offered $25,000 to hit the road. I refused. Think about it - what the hell will $5,000 or $25,000 do for you in this market. If I were forced to move I would be looking at at least twice my current monthly rent, more likely 2 1/2 times.

With the rent I'm paying, I'm here for the long-haul. If my absentee owner wants me out he'll either have to kill me or come up with a buy-out more in line with reality.

And my owner doesn't take care of the building and every repair turns into a "upgrade" discussion - no no sympathy for landlords in this corner at all.

No armchair, my priority in life is not to be landed gentry - I have plenty in investments and I earn plenty - my priorities are traveling a lot, dining well, and being able to provide for things my children and grand children may need. And, yeah, I feel entitled being a tenant - entitled to everything that NYC's rent stabilization laws allow, nothing more and nothing less.

And, I don't subscribe to not paying rent - if you have a legitimate issue with an owner and withholding rent is the recommended action until the issue is settled, every legitimate attorney will tell you that the rent needs to be put into a escrow account.

If you are unhappy with existing NYC laws, you could have just as easily indebted yourself in Ohio.

WE should take a poll sometime and find out how many homeowners and recent renters for that matter have been or are currently being subsidized by parents or other family members to maintain their lifestyles. You portray the issue simply as irresponsible renters vs hard working common folk landlords - I mean give me a fucking break. How many places are being bought in PS right this instant by hedge fund managers and master blaster corporate types for investment purposes - you don't think they have the best interests of renters in mind do you.

myohogirl wrote: My mother is paranoid period. She's old and doesn't want people coming into the house. I need to clarify something she didn't demand they leave, she asked them offering them the money. How is that illegal?

By law, Your mother is supposed to be giving self renewing 1 or 2 year leases , and cannot just say "you have to leave in 3 months". although she may ask (edit - my bad)

So depending on the situation , you may have a real problem. Clearly, if your mom has been ignoring the rent stabilization laws then getting the judicial system involved opens up another can of worms.
Not only do your tenants have rights , but you may very well have exposed yourself to misrepresentation with regard to the buyer.
Especially if you have an accepted offer trying to go to contract under the pretense of "delivered vacant". moreso if the buyer has reached the point of spending $$ on inspections and legal fees associated with the deal.

so while it is likely your mom was just being laissez faire / laid back as opposed to willfully disregarding the law, it seems to me you painted yourselves into the corner.

Guessing this is a FSBO with no guidance.
suggest you visit a real estate profesional and cross your fingers.

just for clarity - this is the part of armchair's rant that I ranted...

"alot of nyc tenants have entitlement problems. they rather rent than save and buy. and some how think they own a piece of that. nyc is too friendly towards the renters. they could screw someone over and wont pay rent for a long time."

I still fell obligated to rant about it :x

If I lived in a rent stabilized apartment, I'd feel entitled to live their so long as the law and my financial situation enabled me to do so. I've lived in rent stabilized apartments before and I treated it as a piece of property I owned. Of course, if my landlord came to me with a sob story about needing me to leave in order to maximize a profit on the sale of the building, I'd be an idiot to just pack up and leave.

usually its six or more units from before 1971.
but 3 units more who took tax benefits are under the program too.

if your mom's place is a 3 family or smaller and have their orignal tenants moved out along time ago with the tax benefit is no longer there. get a lawyer. they aren't or shouldn't have rent stabilization.

Do you have to pay tenants to leave a rent stabilized apartment even if the lease is up? If so, I don't get it--the right to reduced or stabilized rent is not something that the tenant originally paid for. They just lucked into it!! If they had paid a premium up front for the guarantee that their rent wouldn't rise above X%, then of course they'd deserve compensation for any action that pushed them out of the place they'd paid for. But if you just happen to have scored a place with a price fixed by government fiat then how are you entitled to anything whatsoever if the landlord won't renew the lease?

On the other hand, if this "compensation" only applies for broken leases, then I rescind my outrage. However, given that most leases are just 1 to 2 years, the figures thrown around here like $25K or $80K are clearly absurd, so I'm guessing my outrage will remain intact.

Also, if the answer is, "NYC law states that...", I understand, but my point would then be that the law is idiotic (and something tells me we're heading inexorably towards that conclusion).

eggcream wrote: ......I'm assuming she's a senior citizen on a limited income then she has even more rights.

How so? Please explain.

eggcream wrote: ....If there is no lease it's even easier for her.

Once again, how so, please explain, especially given the "auto-renew" lease requirements of rent regulated units.

eggcream wrote: ...Also there is ways around the capital gains taxes as well. .....

But only for crooks with an inadequate grasp of elementary grammar.

In NYC, rent stabilized apartments are those apartments in buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947 and January 1, 1974.

Tenants in buildings of six or more units built before February 1, 1947 and who moved in after June 30, 1971 are also covered by rent stabilization.

A third category of rent stabilized apartments covers buildings with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated since 1974 with special tax benefits. Generally, these buildings are stabilized only while the tax benefits continue.

An owner/landlord can not refuse a lease to a tenant in good standing unless the owner claims he wants the apt for personal use or for he personal use of a blood relative.

If someone buys a rent stabilized building they assume the leases. If they want people out they have to buy them out.

That's what makes an offer of $25,000 a joke - that would just about cover me for the move itself and about 15 months of my anticipated increased rent. After that all the $25,000 would be gone and I would be left with a rent 2 1/2 times that of before.

Once an apartment reaches $2000 a month it automatically comes off of rent stabilization - just look at Sty Town if you want to see horror stories.

escap wrote:

Also, is it common to have rent-stabilized places, or any rentals for that matter, with no lease? If there's no lease, then what's the legal evidence for the base rent from which it can be raised at a stabilized rate? What prevents the landlord from simply terminating the lease at will and forcing eviction with no compensation whatsoever?

How can rent-stabilized apartments have tenants without leases?