Last Thursday, a resident told us that Abart Holdings LLC has sold (or is selling) the buildings at 50, 54 and 58 E. Third St. on this block between First Avenue and Second Avenue.
Another tipster has shared a copy of the letter that some residents of the three buildings received...
Per the letter: "It has been agreed with the impending new owners that your lease will not be renewed and that you will be expected to vacate at the expiration of your lease."
Per the tipster:
"There are definitely much older families who live in the building, and suddenly they've been unceremoniously thrown out. The building is terrible as it is — several break-ins, terrible staircase, the entrance is poorly maintained — and now they are kicking everyone out."
But the residents are getting organized.
Previously on EV Grieve:
Reader report: Three apartment buildings sold on East Third Street
Know your rights: Help with understanding NYC rent laws
14 comments:
Rent stabilized tenants can't be evicted because the landlord wants to make the apartment market rate or convert it to condo.
See: http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/dhcr/dhcr4.html
If they are market rate rental apartments, then the landlord can choose to not issue new leases.
good of you to post this. please keep tracking and posting so the word will spread about how to battle the rampant tenant abuse in the EV!!
It's true, landlords cannot evict tenants who are rent-stabilized. They should all take this to housing court--they will win.
"The building is terrible — several break-ins, terrible staircase, the entrance is poorly maintained — and now they are kicking everyone out."
Reminiscent of the Woody Allen joke (from Annie Hall):
"... two elderly women are at a Catskills mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know, and such small portions."
It shouldn't just be a matter of the tenants going to housing court to be able to remain in the building - the tenants should SUE the new LL's for this outrageously illegal action - wonder if they could even take it to criminal court....
Obviously this is illegal unless they plan to demolish the building or make it into a mansion for their own use. In either case both of these need approval from DOH or DOB or someone like that. If it's not on file yet, it will be soon. There is definitely more to this story than that letter shows.
So what happened when the tenants didn't hesitate to call and ask questions? What were they told as the reason why they were being evicted?
This makes me physically ill...
good luck to them, I hope they win! GOLES is awesome; they helped me many years ago when I didn't have heat/hot water for months on end.
According to the Rent Guidlines Board listing - this property is not rent stablized.
Tenant - folks who rent - pay money for the use of someone else's property, and only for so long as the lease they are able to negotiate entitles them.
This is the bargain one enters as a renter.
The LL is doing nothing illegal in selling his building, and if the new owner chooses to empty the place out - that's perfectly legal too. Why would any new owner want to inherit the liability of tenant he didn't screen, and leases he didn't write?
Owning property and being prudent are not crimes folks.
Re: "According to the Rent Guidlines Board listing - this property is not rent stablized"
Anonymous FUD? All 3 buildings appear on the list from the NYC RGB website that says "Click here for a list of buildings in New York City with rent-stabilized apartments."
See for yourself. http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/resources/sta_bldngs/2010ManhattanBldgs.pdf
Anonymous 2:57 - you have no idea what you are talking about. Buildings in and of themselves aren't rent stabilized or not rent stabilized -- units in buildings are designated individually. It has nothing to do with the building and everything to do with the history of the individual unit. A sort of exception to this rule are newly built rental buildings where none of the units are rent stabilized, but it's not because of the building, it's because none of the units in the building have history.
Rent stabilization has become something where units are grandfathered in based on previous rent and a calculation of renovations made during vacancy.
Some of the apartments in this building are rent stabilized, but most of the more recently rented units are not.
If a building has five or more units and was rented prior to 1974, the rented units are automatically rent-controlled, or, as they become vacant and re-rented, rent-stabilized.
I can't believe these buildings have fewer than five units apiece...
I used to live in number 50. Many years. There are way more than five apartments in those buildings. 6 floors, 4 apts per floor. For the newer tenants I KNOW that when you moved in your rent was massively increased due to ahem renovations ahem. All the apartments should still be stabilized. The landlord pulled a fast one on the younger gormless tenants. Get your rent money back. Sue. Stay put. And yeah, the level of maintenance in those buildings is a joke. Waterbug infestations, mice, rats in the walls, flooding.
Post a Comment