Dept. of Buildings recon. mission
Ok, as promised, here's the deal about our apartment dilemma...
Our lease was up last month and the landlord's office asked us to "move out at our convenience." This invitation coincided with PM looking for renter's insurance and needing some questions answered about the building. We found this far too coincidental for comfort and arrived at the conclusion that our apt. was illegal and they wanted us out before we got too wise. Well, problem is--we're pretty wise. Between PM's real estate schooling and my skills in urban geography/cartography, we're pretty savvy. Here are some interesting factoids from the Dept. of Buildings, gathered yesterday.
History:
-The building appears to have been erected in 1893…as a horse stable.
-In 1921 the building was specified as a three-story, four-family brick tenement.
-According to a 1921 Tenement House Dept. form: there was an alteration of this building, described as “one tenement house located at *our address*.
-In 1933 the first floor was extended and converted. (Our apt. appears to have been a storage area during that time.) There was a knitting mill and repair shop on the premises (most likely where a bodega/grill is now) and a single-family occupancy (on the second floor?). The work was completed in 1934.
-In 1980 the bodega/restaurant was built.
-In 1987 the lot was subdivided for tax purposes. As of 1987 this building was specified as a 4-family apt. building with a restaurant on the first floor. The apartments are further detailed as two on the second floor and two on the third floor. There is no mention of our apartment, nor blueprints or plans to indicate that it exists. There are no further records past this date.
-And the cincher: Thus far, there is no certificate of occupancy on record for this building. However, more research needs to be conducted on this.
Further Info:
-The manager at Dept. of Records said our apt. is probably illegal. In order to find out for sure we need to report it (anonymously) via 311 so they can begin an investigation. Even if we don’t give our name when filing this complaint Mgnt. will probably figure out it’s us, then life will suck.
-As dwellers of an illegal apt., we don’t have many (if any) rights, but the owner did not have the right to rent us this place either.
-We might be able to recover our rent money if we get a lawyer. We can sue for rent on the grounds that we were leased an illegal apt. Something worth looking into, although it might spoil our chances of renting another apt. in the future...
What's Next:
-The Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) Division of Code Enforcement... there we need to ask:
-How many apartments can legally occupy this building?
-Is our apt. building rent controlled?
-If so, what does that rent control entail?
-Now what…?
Any insider info on the nature and legality of this beast, NYC renter's rights, etc. would be greatly appreciated, though it will come as a great surprise to me if anyone has some experience or know-how in matters such as these. We really kissed the pooch this time, and I am NOT looking forward to this particular dog fight...
Our lease was up last month and the landlord's office asked us to "move out at our convenience." This invitation coincided with PM looking for renter's insurance and needing some questions answered about the building. We found this far too coincidental for comfort and arrived at the conclusion that our apt. was illegal and they wanted us out before we got too wise. Well, problem is--we're pretty wise. Between PM's real estate schooling and my skills in urban geography/cartography, we're pretty savvy. Here are some interesting factoids from the Dept. of Buildings, gathered yesterday.
History:
-The building appears to have been erected in 1893…as a horse stable.
-In 1921 the building was specified as a three-story, four-family brick tenement.
-According to a 1921 Tenement House Dept. form: there was an alteration of this building, described as “one tenement house located at *our address*.
-In 1933 the first floor was extended and converted. (Our apt. appears to have been a storage area during that time.) There was a knitting mill and repair shop on the premises (most likely where a bodega/grill is now) and a single-family occupancy (on the second floor?). The work was completed in 1934.
-In 1980 the bodega/restaurant was built.
-In 1987 the lot was subdivided for tax purposes. As of 1987 this building was specified as a 4-family apt. building with a restaurant on the first floor. The apartments are further detailed as two on the second floor and two on the third floor. There is no mention of our apartment, nor blueprints or plans to indicate that it exists. There are no further records past this date.
-And the cincher: Thus far, there is no certificate of occupancy on record for this building. However, more research needs to be conducted on this.
Further Info:
-The manager at Dept. of Records said our apt. is probably illegal. In order to find out for sure we need to report it (anonymously) via 311 so they can begin an investigation. Even if we don’t give our name when filing this complaint Mgnt. will probably figure out it’s us, then life will suck.
-As dwellers of an illegal apt., we don’t have many (if any) rights, but the owner did not have the right to rent us this place either.
-We might be able to recover our rent money if we get a lawyer. We can sue for rent on the grounds that we were leased an illegal apt. Something worth looking into, although it might spoil our chances of renting another apt. in the future...
What's Next:
-The Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) Division of Code Enforcement... there we need to ask:
-How many apartments can legally occupy this building?
-Is our apt. building rent controlled?
-If so, what does that rent control entail?
-Now what…?
Any insider info on the nature and legality of this beast, NYC renter's rights, etc. would be greatly appreciated, though it will come as a great surprise to me if anyone has some experience or know-how in matters such as these. We really kissed the pooch this time, and I am NOT looking forward to this particular dog fight...