NYC- Breaking a Lease

[anylaurie]

I'm relocating and have to break my lease. Currently, the rent for our Manhattan studio is 1895.00. For the next tenant, the management company has raised it to $2150.00. This is nearly a 15% increase and there is little interest in the apartment because it's not worth $2150.00- not in this economy.

I realize I am responsible for the rent until the place is rented out, but up to what point? If the new rent is so outrageous that no one will take it- do I have to keep paying? Why can't they ask $4,000 for it, since they have no incentive to be sane as I have to pay 1895.00 until the lease is up?

Thanks for any insite!

Laurie

 

[dj1]

You have a very interesting question here.....

Last year the apartment would have rented for the $2150 no sweat!

Is your apartment rent stabilized? If so you can legally sublet it for the rent you are paying....

AND IF THE LANDLORD REFUSES YOU THE SUBLET,(assuming you found finacially qualified tenants) THE LEASE IS EFFECTIVELY TERMINATED! and you would owe ZERO!

The general rule is that a landlord must advertise at the same rental you are renting at then if there is no interest you would be liable for the rent.

There are court cases which you might be able to find on http://www.tenant.net which might answer this.

I do know there was a court case recently the landlord tried to get 40% more rent and couldnt rent it then sued the tenants for the remaining months and LOST.

Send a letter certified return reciept, and state that the landlord has a duty to mitgate damages in NYCtiy, and one of those duties is to advertise the apartment at the same rental as your lease, advertising the rental at a NEW RENTAL rate means the landlord has cancelled the lease, and is willing to take FULL Financial resposibilty for the apartment......now if the landlord refuses then the landlord has violated the lease, and you will take futher Legal action to recoup all of your secuirty deposit....

the place would rent for the $1895 in a few days, so the landlord will NOT lose any money

[Edited by dj1 on 02-22-2001 at 01:52 PM]

 

[anylaurie]

Thanks dj1, I just posted this on tenant.net's boards. I'm trying to find any information that backs up dj1's statement that the landlord has to ask the same rent in order for me to be liable for unrented month(s). If anyone has solid info, I'd appreciate it.

laurie

 

[dj1]

Case Caption:

Solow Management Corp. v. Lovelac

Issues/Legal Principles:
Where landlord agrees to seek to re-let apartment, it must act in good faith in seeking a new tenant.
Keywords:
mitigation of damages
Court:
Civil Court, County of New York
Judge:
Hon. Debra Samuels
Date:
June 28, 2000
Citation:
NYLJ, page 27, col. 6
Referred Statutes:
None cited

Summary:
Landlord sued tenant in Civil Court for rent arrears. The tenant, who had moved from the residential premises, had entered into an agreement with the landlord prior to moving in which the landlord agreed to attempt to re-let the apartment on the condition that the tenant remove all of his possessions from the apartment and pay any costs in connection with the re-letting of the apartment. The landlord claimed that it could not re-let the apartment and sued the tenant for the remainder of the term under the lease. The landlord then moved for summary judgment. The Court denied the motion. It found that there was a question of fact as to whether the landlord had made a good faith effort to re-let the premises where it sought a rent increase of 22% to 44% for the apartment upon re-letting. Court also found that there was a question of fact regarding tenant’s defense of laches since the landlord waited seven months to sue under the lease.


[Edited by dj1 on 02-22-2001 at 03:46 PM]

 

[anylaurie]

wow! Thanks so much!
Laurie

 

[dj1]

Laurie:

Is the apartment rent stabilized? 6 or more apartments in a building built before 1974 is usually rent stabilized.

Have you contacted DHCR to get a rental history of your apartment? You could have been overcharged as well....

If it is rent stabilized... then landlord has a legal right to a 20% vacancy increase,so asking 15% is less then he can legally charge.... so this puts this question in a kinda new legal grey area, all because of the economy.







[Edited by dj1 on 02-22-2001 at 04:08 PM]