Archive

Archive for May, 2011

May 12, 2011

May 13, 2011 2 comments

Last night I went to a meeting put together by Assembly Member Daniel O’Donnell. Mr. O’Donnell presented information on why we need to get the Rent Stabilization laws renewed and improved by June 15, 2011. I think it goes without saying this is a first step as to what needs to be done in order to have protections in place for Rent Stabilized Tenants. However I think it is extremely important to keep up the pressure to correct the system that governs these laws, particularly DHCR. If the laws pass again as we all think they will, we will be left with all the problems of enforcing these laws.

 It occurred to me that the Landlords are not to upset with the current situation because many of them do not abide by the rules to begin with. Mr. O’Donnell said he is personal friends with the new commissioner of the DHCR. All well and good, however I do not care that he knows this persons Wife and kids. I care that this person does his job in a fiduciary manner protecting the rights of all involved.

Having Rent Stabilization renewed without fixing the governing body is lowering the bar. The administration of the laws needs to be corrected. A start is to look at my agenda (below) and look to others who have been trying to get these laws adhered to in the past. June 15 is just the first step. We need to fix the entire problem.

Categories: Uncategorized

What could be simpler?

I have been confused by the way the courts and DHCR debated over whether buildings which receive J-51 benefits are Rent Stabilized. Below is a link to Page 16 of the J-51 Guidebook. It is clear and simple. 

 

On January 16, 1996 DHCR issued an Opinion letter to Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, here is a copy of the Opinion Letter from the DHCR. This Opinion letter created the confusion over whether or not buildings receiving J-51 benefits were subject to Rent Stabilization. Read (link below) this opinion and Kudos to you if you can make heads or tails of the language they use.

 

The opinion letter refers to NYC Administrative code 11- 242 and 11-243 (link below). Nowhere in these documents do I find language that affirms a stance of the RSL not being activated as a result of a building obtaining J-51 benefits. It does say in 11-244 section 6d ii “all dwelling units, except owner occupied units, shall be subject to the emergency housing rent control law or the local housing rent control act or the tenant protection act of the nineteen hundred seventy –four, or any local laws enacted pursuant thereto or the rent stabilization law of nineteen hundred sixty-nine;” Pretty clear to me.

 

I cannot find specific language in Real Property Tax Law Section 489 that is specific to this issue. I will post it when I locate it. Below is a link to a report done by Eastern Consolidated synopsis of the Decision and its implications regarding J-51 and Stuyvesant Town.

Links:

DHCR Opinion Letter – DHCR opinion letter dated January 16, 1996 re J-51

Page 16 J-51 Guide book – Page 16 J-51 Guide Book

NYC Admin Code 11-243 and 11-244NYC Admin Code Pt. 1 and 11-243 

NYC Admin Code Pt. 1 and 11-244

Eastern Consolidated synopsisThe Ruling on Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village_November 2009

Categories: Uncategorized