No Vacancy Increase for Unit in SRO Hotel

July 31, 2001

LVT Number: 15179

Landlord sued to evict SRO hotel tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord claimed that tenant's weekly rent was $260. Tenant claimed that his legal weekly rent was $135 and that he was being overcharged. Landlord claimed that he had charged tenant a legal vacancy increase. Tenant asked the court to rule in his favor without a trial. The court ruled for tenant in part. The Rent Guidelines Board didn't provide for vacancy increases during the period in question, so landlord couldn't collect any. But the court couldn't calculate the legal rent without further review of the facts.

Landlord sued to evict SRO hotel tenant for nonpayment of rent. Landlord claimed that tenant's weekly rent was $260. Tenant claimed that his legal weekly rent was $135 and that he was being overcharged. Landlord claimed that he had charged tenant a legal vacancy increase. Tenant asked the court to rule in his favor without a trial. The court ruled for tenant in part. The Rent Guidelines Board didn't provide for vacancy increases during the period in question, so landlord couldn't collect any. But the court couldn't calculate the legal rent without further review of the facts.

Katz v. Neal: NYLJ, 7/25/01, p. 18, col. 3 (Civ. Ct. NY; Lau, J)

Topics

More like this