I leased a rent stablized apartment in NYC while I was in college from 1997-2001. Mid-lease, I moved across country, with intention to return the following year, and my roommate stayed. I never returned though, and roommate has paid the rent ever since. I’ve never really thought about it since then, but I suppose my roommate had been signing lease renewals in my name for 15 years. (I remember the first year, when I was planning on returning the next year, he asked if he should sign the lease for me and I said sure)
So, I just heard from him now, that he received a Vacate notice stating he (I) didn’t send a lease renewal, so must vacate within 30 days. He says he did send the renewal. (of course, signed my name), and asked me to help any way I could. What I obviously am not going to do is lie to them, or anything that would be fraudulent.
I’m guessing they are on to him and are forcing his hand, but I have no idea.
I told him to get a lawyer, which I assume he is doing. He is asking if a notarized permission from me to sign my name on the lease would cover him against anything. I really don’t know anything about how any of this proceeds. The roommate is a long time old friend and not a risk to do anything to screw me, But I don’t want to do anything to endanger myself, or the roommate.
So I am wondering how does/should this play out and what are the repercussions for me? (and the roommate)
More like one where the landlord could have been charging the roommate a lot more rent for the last 15 years if the roommate hadn’t defrauded the landlord by pretending to be somebody else. Sounds like 15 counts to me, although prosecution for the oldest ones are probably barred by the statute of limitations.
IANA lawyer though, and especially not a NY lawyer.
Was the original lease in both of your names, or just yours? Not sure whether it matters, but it might be a relevant detail if t least one initial tenant is still there.
If he’s been living there he has some pretty powerful tenant’s rights compared with most other jurisdictions. The landlord can commence eviction procedures but even if he had destroyed property and his checks had bounced it would normally take ~6 months to put him out. He should totally get an attorney to represent him. (At which point he’ll be getting advice from an attorney, not from you or from us, which is probably a good idea here).
NYC is rife with legal assistance to anyone at risk of losing their homes. Housing Court ITSELF should have someone at a desk providing info of that nature to anyone who needs it.
I’m rather impressed that you were able to do this for 15 years. I once left my rent stabilized apartment for 2 months for a work assignment ( my roommate stayed ) and I got a “shot across the bow” from my landlord - a cease and desist notice for an illegal sublet - after 6 weeks. It was all withdrawn when I came back. I eventually decided I hated the place and I let them give me a huge amount of money in exchange for moving.
I know some property managers that have actually busted people for entering into sham marriages in order to transfer a rent-stabilized apartment.
Now, I am so not a lawyer and won’t attempt any legal advice but NYC landlords are notoriously serious about enforcing the occupancy restrictions on rent-controlled and stabilized apartments and I would tread very carefully. While it is very difficult to evict a tenant in NYC, it may not be quite so difficult to prosecute one for fraud (or at least sue their asses off). And, even though IANAL, I think that if you gave someone permission to use your identity in order to evade the rent-stabilization requirement you would be a party to that fraud. If I were your ex-roommate I’d probably consider cutting my losses and moving – I really don’t see how he can pursue this without admitting wrongdoing.
Of course, this is assuming that your roommate was never on the lease. If he was on the original lease I think that changes everything ( but if that was the case, I don’t know why he would’ve been forging your signature all these years.)
Not to mention potentially being on the hook for 15 years difference between the rent he was paying and what the landlord could have gotten for the apartment otherwise.
Even if he complies with the eviction notice it might not protect him against being taken to court, so consulting a knowledgeable lawyer is probably a good idea.
A legal system that enables this seems deeply wrong: landlord must pay a huge amount of money to regain effective ownership of something he supposedly owned all along.
But, as a guy with a rent-controlled apartment in Boston once told me “It’s real simple - politicians understand that there are a lot more tenants than landlords, and it’s pretty cool to buy the tenants’ votes with the landlords’ money.”
I don’t think it’s morally wrong as long as both parties know what they’re getting into.
If, when I rent out an apartment I own, the law says that I can only increase the rent by a certain percentage as long as the same person lives there, and I can only evict for specific causes, well, that’s the deal I’m making.
People and businesses make deals all the time where breaking the contract costs one party a bunch of money.
If the law is changed afterward to give the tenant more rights than originally specified, that seems immoral to me.
As a matter of economic policy, I think it’s a terrible idea to require it (as does just about every economist). But I don’t think it’s fundamentally wrong.
You need to distance yourself from this boondoggle as fast as possible. That he is reaching out to you to help solve his problem after a 15 year absence should be a siren screaming in your brain at ear splitting volumes. Tell him he has to move and that you have no relief to offer him. Anything you do to implicate yourself in his illegal tenancy is an epic tar baby that will drag you into a legal quagmire.
He has had a 15 year run and he needs to move on. You were foolish to agree to him perpetrating this fraud using your name. If the landlord atty discovers your game you are subject to all sorts of legal slaps. You need to run away rom this mess.
IANANYA, but it kinda reads like you’re screwed one way or the other.
Your defense is YOU didn’t sign the lease renewal(s), ergo it’s not a binding contract on you. BUT, the landlord has a contract with (allegedly) your signature. Either you’re lying, or someone forged your signature. Your roommate’s now on the hook. HIS defense is yes, he signed it for you, but YOU told him to. Now, you either have to lie (to save yourself and let your roommate take the hit for both the lease AND the forgery) or tell the truth, meaning you’re on the hook for the lease AND for the attempt-at-fraud.
Which outcome has the least (financial) damages to you? That’s probably the one you should take…presuming the landlord’s willing to go for it. THEY may want to go for the outcome with the MOST financial damages for them.
Best of luck to you.
IANAL, but being an IT expert who has worked on discovery searches in numerous litigation cases, if I were in your shoes, I would be very hesitant with regarding making statements that might appear to admit any culpability in potentially fraudulent activity; especially in electronic format such as email, text, in a public forum, etc. Even if I thought it was anonymously. I certainly wouldn’t do anything further to exacerbate the issue. My advice is that you both seek legal council for guidance and have them communicate on your behalf. Attorney-client privilege and all that.
This. NYC is one of the toughest places to evict in the states (especially compared to…let’s say Texas, where they evict by lethal injection). And any halfway competent attorney can tie it up for quite some time. That’s why people often get sizable payouts to break a lease.
As a landlord (not in NYC though), I feel for the landlord. If he’s doing a decent job of maintaining the place, after 15 years the market rent will have gone up significantly more than the stabilized rent. Of course he wants the tenant out. Doesn’t matter if your friend is the best tenant to have ever walked the earth - there are years the maximum rent increases don’t cover the increased year-over-year costs. Turnover, usually bad for a landlord, is one of the only ways to increase the landlord’s return on investment.
It would have been better had your friend sent you the lease, had you sign it and physically send it back, but he’ll have plenty of squatter’s rights and renter’s rights as is, despite the fraud.
Is that his actual signature on the lease? No? Then I think it can be argued it’s not a legal signature, not a legal contract, and no, he’s not on the lease.
What I got from the OP is that he gave consent for the former roommate to sign the first lease renewal after he moved out, but there was no discussion of subsequent lease renewals or further permission given. Maybe he’s on the hook for that first one, if the statute of limitations hasn’t come into play, but arguably not for the rest.
Of course, IANAL
Seems to me whether the permission was for just one renewal or for all of them is an important distinction. Also, whether or not sufficient time has passed that statute limitations have removed the legal risk for the OP.
When I rented that apartment, my landlord presented me with a legally binding contract that his office approved. There were terms in that contract that were mandated by the city, true . But no one held a gun to my landlords head when he signed that contract. He had choices. He could have chosen to retain the property for his use instead of renting it out. He could have sold the property if he felt the rental terms of his own lease were too onerous on him.
The contract that he signed required him to renew the contract every two years unless specific circumstances applied. I asked him to comply with that provision. He decided that he would prefer to be released from his contract and contacted me to begin negotiations. He was very pleased with the deal we cut and considered me to be a cooperative and flexible tenant. Im sure the financial negatives of dealing with the pesky rent-control laws are, in balance, much smaller than the financial positives of owning a large amount of expensive and rapidly appreciating real estate.
Out of curiosity, what percentage/multiple of the monthly rent did the settlement money you received represent. (I’m not trying to be snarky - I’m genuinely curious.)
The cash payout amounted to about a years worth of rent, plus I got to live rent free for up to 6 months while I arranged to move. I think I only stayed 3 or 4 months but it gave me time to look for awhile and find someplace good.
It probably also worth noting that I was not a long term tenant - I had lived in the apartment for 3 years, IIRC and my rent was not significantly below market value at the time of the buyout. The apartment was a railroad flat walk up in horrible condition, but it was located on the Upper East Side. The landlord’s intent was to renovate the building and combine units to bring it up to the quality expected in that neighborhood. Probably worth noting that out of the 4 apartments on each floor only 2 had bathrooms INSIDE the apartment, the other 2 had a shared bath in the freakin’ hallway. I had an apartment with a bathroom but the place was a dump. I was only living there because it was a great location and I was young and never spent time at home.
And despite all this and despite me never being home except to sleep, they took their rent control occupancy laws so seriously that they once noticed that I was away and tried to start eviction proceedings when I was out of town on businees for less than six weeks