New Jersey Real Estate Lawyer Blog

When working to remedy a problem between a landlord and a tenant the first question that one should ask is whether a written lease exists between the parties. The absence of a written lease does not mean that a tenancy does not exist. If one lives on someone else's property and the parties exchange funds, there most likely is a landlord-tenant agreement. Written leases must comply with New Jersey's Plain Language Law (N.J.S.A. 56:12-1), which requires that the language be simple and understandable. However, if a written lease exists it should contain the following provisions:

Provision #1: Term and Rental - reservation of the rent should be made by stating the amount due for the year and the amount for each monthly installment

Provision #2: Sublet Clause - negotiation should be undertaken to require that the landlord accept any reasonable sublessee

Provision #3: Pet Clause - a provision should be made to allow a tenant to keep a pet or the landlord to exclude said pet

Provision #4: Late Charge - a reasonable late charge should be negotiated to protect the landlord

Provision #5: Attorney's Fees - a provision should be made for reasonable attorney's fees to be paid to the prevailing party should a dispute arise between said parties

Provision #6: Rent Due Date - this provision can be combined with Provision #1, but if not then a date certain should be set for when rent is due

Continue reading "New Jersey Landlord Tenant Law: Residential Lease Provisions" »

The story of Tishman Speyer Properties and BlackRock Realty (the "Owners") ceding control of Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town to their lenders in early January 2010 to avoid bankruptcy is old news, but an October 2009 New York Court of Appeals (the "Court") decision, which contributed to the Owners default, will create aftershocks for years to come. Moreover, due to the Court's decision investors and developers are reshaping the way they value potential residential property investments in New York by taking into account an unresolved variable: the ability to deregulate rents.

The facts and holding of the Court are simple: Nine plaintiff-tenants of Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town, two adjoining Manhattan apartment complexes between 14th and 23rd Streets along the East River (the "Property") argued that the Owners and the prior owner, MetLife, were not permitted to deregulate rents because they were simultaneously receiving tax incentive benefits under the City of New York's J-51 program. The Court agreed with the plaintiff-tenants.

The J-51 program allows property owners who complete eligible projects (i.e. boiler replacement, asbestos abatement, etc.) to receive tax exemptions and/or abatements, which are designed to encourage building rehabilitation and improvements. Units in a building receiving these exemptions must be registered with the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal ("DHCR"); consequently such units are subject to rent stabilization during the J-51 exemption period.

The Property had been rent-stabilized since 1974, but MetLife first applied for and received J-51 benefits for the Property in 1992. It is important to understand that the Owners argued that the reason the deregulated units were subject to the rent-stabilization law in the first place had nothing to do with the J-51 benefits they were receiving.

Continue reading "Peter Cooper Village & Stuyvesant Town: Landlord Tenant Law Teaches Investors a Lesson" »