Articles Posted in Landlord and Tenant

Many of our clients are landlords who own only one property, such as a single or multi-family house or an apartment. Although they may be renting to a tenant, it is not their primary business or livelihood. As such, our firm is often asked to assist in removing a tenant due to a default under the lease, or due to the expiration of the lease in question. As discussed in a prior blog post, a Court proceeding is necessary in order to gain legal authority to evict a tenant.

The legal document allowing an eviction to occur is known as a warrant or warrant of eviction. It is similar to a judgment, except that instead of stating that a certain sum of money is owed, it states that the landlord has the legal right to evict a tenant. A warrant can be obtained in several ways during a Court proceeding. If the parties agree to settle a landlord-tenant action, the tenant may agree to vacate by a certain date. A condition of such agreement (known as a Stipulation or Stipulation of Settlement) would be that if the tenant does not vacate voluntarily, the landlord is entitled to a warrant of eviction. Often, the agreement will allow the warrant to be issued immediately, but the parties will agree to stay, or delay, enforcement of the warrant until after the date on which the tenant agreed to vacate the premises.

The Stipulation allows the landlord to have a warrant of eviction, but gives the tenant a reasonable amount of time (usually a month or two) in which to vacate. A crucial part of such an agreement is also that the tenant must pay use and occupancy during the period of time between settlement and moving out. Use and occupancy is a legal term which applies to rent paid after the tenant has agreed to surrender possession. The agreement will usually state that if the tenant fails to pay such use and occupancy, the warrant may be executed immediately upon notice of default sent to the tenant, rather than on the later date previously agreed to by the parties.

A recent gas explosion in Manhattan’s East Village destroyed an entire building, and, more unfortunately, caused the deaths of at least two individuals and injuries to other people who were unlucky to be in the building during the explosion. Of course, the human cost of such a tragedy cannot be measured. This blog post will attempt to explain some of the legal issues that relate to illegal actions on the part of a landlord or a tenant.

Apparently the gas explosion may have been caused by the illegal siphoning of a gas line by the building’s landlord. If this is indeed the case, the landlord would be legally responsible for any injuries caused by the explosion, including the deaths of the individuals. Such legal responsibility be in both the civil and criminal categories. This means that the persons responsible for the illegal siphoning may face charges of criminal negligence, and be subject to arrest and jail time.

In addition, any persons damaged by the explosion may file civil suits seeking money damages for their injuries. This may also include wrongful death actions brought by the legal heirs of those killed in the explosion. A wrongful death suit usually seeks damages in the amount of future earnings by those who may have been legally dependent on the person who died. It is usually brought by a surviving spouse or child of the decedent. Those found to be legally responsible for the death of the individuals in the explosion may have to pay compensation in the amount of estimated lifetime future earnings of the person who died as a result of their negligence.

Prior posts on this blog have dealt with the legal issues regarding partition of property. To summarize, a partition action may be brought when a property has two or more owners, and the owners are unable to agree on the disposition of the property. One owner may wish to sell the property to a third party, and another owner may wish to retain the property.

Often, one or more of the co-owners may live at the property in question. Another possibility is that none of the owners live at the property, and are renting the premises to a third party who is not a property owner. This blog post will explore the legal issues regarding tenants and occupancy of a property which may be subject to partition.

The first issue to be examined is where one or more of the owners lives at the property in question. Legally, any owner of the property is entitled to reside at the property if the property is residential in nature. For example, let’s assume a property owner passes away and leaves her house to her three children, each to own a one-third (1/3) share of the property. Under this scenario, any or all of the three children may reside at the house in question. None of the three new owners has a legal right to exclude the others from residing at the property. Of course, this can create problems in a scenario where one owner resides at the property, and the other owners do not. Since the non-resident owners do not have a legal right to evict the owner residing at the property, their main recourse would be a partition action to sell the property to a third party.

One of the most frequently asked questions when our firm meets with a new client relates to the awarding of attorney’s fees. Many of our landlord-tenant clients ask us whether they can recover their attorney’s fees in Court from the other party in the litigation. The answer to this question is not a simple one, and this blog post will answer under what circumstances a party may recover their attorney’s fees from the other party, whether in a landlord-tenant litigation, or other type of case.

The general rule in most United States based lawsuits is that all parties pay their own attorney’s fees, regardless of the outcome of the litigation. This is the standard rule in the U.S., although, in other countries, the loser of the litigation is often obligated to pay the attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.

However, the general rule in the U.S., and, more specifically, in New York State, is subject to certain exceptions. Under these exceptions, which we will discuss, the recovery of attorney’s fees from the adversarial side in litigation may sometimes occur. The first exception is when there is a written contract between the parties that allows for the recovery of attorney fees in litigation. For example, a contract clause may state that if a party defaults in their obligations under a contract, and the other party is obligated to bring a Court action to recover damages, and prevails in that action, then they are allowed to recover attorney’s fees. Careful review of any such contract clause would be necessary to determine whether attorney’s fees would be recoverable.

First, we would like to wish all followers of our blog a happy and healthy 2015. We look forward to continued successful legal outcomes for all of our clients in the New Year.

Our copy of Black’s law dictionary defines a subtenant as “one who leases all or part of the rented premises from the original lessee for a term less than that held by the latter.” What this means is that, ordinarily, a tenant rents premises from a landlord, who is usually the owner of the property. The tenant may, in turn, rent her interest as a lessee to another party. That other party is generally known as a subtenant.

Of course, subletting a property to a subtenant creates many legal issues relating to the landlord-tenant relationship, which we will address in this post. The first issue is whether the tenant has the legal right to sublet the space to a subtenant. The answer to this question is usually found in the lease between the landlord and the over-tenant. The lease may expressly forbid subletting. In that case, the over-tenant is in breach of the lease if they sublet the space. In the alternative, the lease may allow subletting, but only with the permission of the landlord. Some leases will state that such permission is “not to be unreasonably withheld.” In such situations, we recommend obtaining the landlord’s consent in writing. That way, there can be no misunderstanding regarding whether the landlord has consented to a subtenant. Finally, the lease may be silent as to subletting. In such instances, courts have generally held that the subletting is not a breach of the lease and can be allowed.