var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
wickedpixel
April 4, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

this article makes more sense when you add in the fact that these are rent stabilized apartments. should maybe include that fact in the post.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Keavy_Rain
April 4, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wickedpixel: I fail to see why that matters. One would expect decent living conditions and fair treatment regardless of how much or how little the person pays in rent.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OggJoshua
April 4, 2009 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Keavy_Rain: With a NYC rent-stabilized apartment, each time the tenancy turns over, the landlord is allowed to raise the rent much more than he would have if the existing tenant had renewed his lease. After the monthly rent reaches a certain threshold through turnover, the apartment is no longer governed by rent-stabilization. The landlord can start renting it for whatever price he wishes, which is a very attractive proposition in an expensive housing market like NYC.

It's all too common in NYC that a landlord will treat his rent-stabilized tenants shabbily to effect turnover. If this article's author had mentioned that the tenants are under rent stabilization, it would have given us a better idea of the landlord's motives and thus given the story extra credibility. I think that's what wickedpixel was talking about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dbshaw
April 4, 2009 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Keavy_Rain: It doesn't mitigate the landlord's behavior, but journalistically speaking the fact the apts were rent stabilized does add to the story as far as motive goes.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
44 in a Row
April 4, 2009 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I fail to see why that matters. One would expect decent living conditions and fair treatment regardless of how much or how little the person pays in rent.

It matters because otherwise the landlord would just raise the rent and use that to get them out. In a rent-stabilized apartment, the landlord is by law only allowed to raise the rent by a certain percentage (and note that this differs from a rent-controlled apartment, where there's a Maximum Base Rent determined for each unit by the city). But, the landlord is allowed to make improvements to the apartment and pass those charges along. So the landlord can't raise the rent, but he could, for example, install a new refrigerator and charge the tenant for that. Except here, the landlord didn't actually install the new refrigerator.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
JollyJumjuck
April 4, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@44 in a Row: Then perhaps the landlord ought to know the law with respect to the area or that particular building. If the landlord purchased the building, they should have known it was rent controlled.

Posters can be quick to blame the victim for not exercising due diligence. Here, I am blaming the landlord for the same behavior. Unless this is less a case of, \"Whoops, we didn't know what we got ourselves into!\" and more a case of, \"Eh, who cares, let's see how much we can squeeze those tenants before they leave.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
April 6, 2009 10:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JollyJumjuck:

I'm not sure which part of let's charge a guy for a fridge we never installed is the accidental part...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OggJoshua
April 4, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JollyJumjuck: I think the landlords knew what they were getting into and had no intention of ever behaving legally. They were depending on the ignorance or sheepishness of their tenants. It's a common story in NYC with landlords of rent-stabilized buildings.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
flamincheney
April 4, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How does the subsidization of the apartments outweigh that the tenants were essentially billed for new appliances that were never received and then further penalized.

I really don't think the fact the apartment is rent stabilized should factor at all... A complete non-issue.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jacob Morgan
April 4, 2009 9:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flamincheney: You're right, but knowing that the apartments are rent stabilized gives insight to us, the readers, as to why Dawnay Day would resort to fraud instead of just raising the tenants rates.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Felix Feline
April 4, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Rent-stabilization hardly appears to be a non-issue in the actual article. In fact, it seems to be the central theme around which all else swirls.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
oneliketadow
April 4, 2009 7:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't this now mail fraud, IMHO a federal offense?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
April 4, 2009 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't know the area and things like \"rent stabilized\" confuse me. Is this area a slum? If so, is the owner really a slumlord? Serious question, by the way.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amelie
April 4, 2009 11:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar: Does using google confuse you also?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
April 5, 2009 2:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amelie: You don't have to be an asshole. I wasn't asking about \"rent-stabilized.\" I was questioning \"slumlord\" which to me is something in the slums. So I was asking if this area was properly a slum, or if the word \"slumlord\" was being bandied about improperly.

I guess I should ask you if reading English always confuses you, you putz.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OggJoshua
April 4, 2009 10:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar: East Harlem is on the fringe of other gentrified areas of Manhattan. It's not a slum; but a slumlord is any landlord, through his greedy neglect, who allows shabby conditions to prevail in his properties.

Almost any apartment building constructed before 1969ish in NYC comprises 100% rent-stabilized units until enough tenant turnover happens over the years. Read the replies above to see why that matters to landlords who want to maximize profit.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Aladdyn
April 5, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just read an update on the case. The court sentenced the landlord to live in one of the units until he completes all the repairs he billed the tenants for.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
April 5, 2009 9:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aladdyn: You are thinking of a different story. This is a civil case, not a criminal case. The judge doesn't \"sentence\" anyone to do anything.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ajlei
April 5, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: I read Aladdyn's post as being in jest.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GiuliettaGanymede
April 5, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aladdyn: I guess the judge enjoyed the Joe Pesci movie \"The Super\"

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mythago
April 5, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ajlei: There has actually been one case where a landlord was sentenced to live in his slum units. (I think there may have been more but I am only aware of one that really happened for sure.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Smooooth
April 6, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Sifting through New York State consumer law.\"


Please, suing for deceptive business practices is done as a matter of course and the cause of action is as well known among lawyers as breach of contract or negligence.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
lostingenerica
April 8, 2009 2:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This story, on top of my own landlord/tenant experiences really makes me wonder why there aren't more laws in place, state by state, to protect tenants. It seems like there are a lot of laws to protect landlords, though.

Reply
");