How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Barrister Your Own Question
Barrister
Barrister, Lawyer
Category: Real Estate Law
Satisfied Customers: 37002
Experience:  16 years real estate, Realtor. Landlord 26 years
19958803
Type Your Real Estate Law Question Here...
Barrister is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Is having my belongings blocking access to the windows considered

Customer Question

is having my belongings blocking access to the windows considered enough grounds for
eviction of the tenant in nyc?
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Real Estate Law
Expert:  Barrister replied 1 year ago.
Hello and welcome! My name is ***** ***** I am a licensed attorney who will try my very best to help with your situation or get you to someone who can. There may be a slight delay in my responses as I research statutes or ordinances and type out an answer or reply,but rest assured, I am working on your question..Are you under a fixed term lease or are you month to month?.Are you in a rent controlled or rent stabilized apartment?.Are all entry and exit points and fire escapes accessible in the event of an emergency?..thanksBarrister.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP , FIRST OF ALL1. I AM ON FIXED 1-YEAR RENT TERM THAT IS SET TO RENEW ON 08-01-2016 ( I ALREADY SENT TO LANDLORD MY INTENTION TO RENEW FOR 1 MORE YEAR - TO COMMENCE ON 08-01-2016 AND TERMINATE ON 07-31-2017 ( WITH POSSIBLE AND VERY PROBABLE FUTURE RENEWALS AFTER THAT SUBJECT TO ME KNOWING CONDITIONS OF THOSE AT THE FUTURE TIME ) .2, I AM IN RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT .3. I AM NOT AWARE OF NY AND all entry and exit points and fire escapes accessible in the event of an emergency? I DONT KNOW IF I HAVE THOSE POINTS AND FIRE ESCAPES IN MY APARTMENT AND IF I DO, I DONT KNOW WHERE THEY ARE
Expert:  Barrister replied 1 year ago.
Ok, thank you for that information..From a purely legal perspective, having items blocking the windows wouldn't be a violation of your lease so as to give the landlord grounds to evict unless it specifically stated that in the lease or it was a violation of fire code. So if a blocked window is not leading out onto the fire escape, then if likely isn't a fire code violation. .And there is no legal requirement that a person has to live and sleep in their apartment all the time. However, according to the NYC Rent Guidelines Board, under the rent stabilization law, a tenant in a rent stabilized apartment must maintain the unit as his/her primary residence. The primary residence provisions of the law were enacted to make sure that tenants did not take advantage of the regulatory system..So you don't have to stay there all the time, but you can't live elsewhere and just use the apartment for storage or the landlord could terminate and evict..I suspect the landlord is simply concerned about the amount of personal property in your apartment and is trying to bluff you into getting rid of some of it so as not to create a fire hazard if there was some kind of emergency...thanksBarrister
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
THANKS AGIN.
THEY FURTHER SAID TODAY THAT IN CASE POLICE NEEDS TO GET TO WINDOWS , THEY NEED TO HAVE ACCESS . WHAT CAN POLICE ACCESS HAVE TO DO WITH "FIRE HAZARD "?
HOW CAN I POSSIBLY KNOW THAT ALL MY CLEANING EFFORTS BE SATISFACTORY TO THEM , BECAUSE EVEN IF I CLEAN IT UP , THEY MAY STILL BE UNHAPPY . IF THEY STILL ARE UNHAPPY , CAN THEY USE THEIR " DISSATISFACTION " WITH MY EFFORTS AS GROUNDS TO PROCEED WITH EVICTION PROCESS .
HOW MUCH TIME CAN I HAVE FOR CLEANING BEFORE THEY PROCEED .
IF THEY CONTINUE TO BE " UNHAPPY " , CAN THEY USE THEIR UNHAPPINESS AS AN EXCUSE TO HIDE BEHIND VERY VAGUE , INCONCRETE AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION STATEMENTS ( ANOTHER WORDS , THEIR DEFINITION AND MEANING WOULD ONLY BE DEPENDENT ON WHO IT IS THAT YOU ASK ) AND NOT ON CLEAR LEGAL DEFINITION ?/
ESSENTIALLY, MY QUESTION IS - IF THEY KEEP MAKING UP THEIR CASE , DO I HAVE ANY DEFENSE BEHIND CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE LEGAL TERMS THAT ARE NOT VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS .
WHEN YOU MENTION THAT TENANT HAS TO " MAINTAIN THE UNIT AS HIS / HER PRIMARY RESIDENCE " - ANY CONCRETE DEFINIT9VE LEGAL CRITERIA FOR THAT ?
CAN THEY BASE THEIR ASSUMPTION THAT THEY DONT SEE ME OFTEN ( WHICH, IS OBVIOUSLY , BECAUSE I WORK ) AS BASIS FOR SAYING THAT I DONT LIVE THERE , AND THAT IT IS NOT MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE .
I KNOW FOR A FACT , THAT THEY ARE PEOPLE THERE THAT RENT IN MY BUILDING AND LIVE IN FLORIDA FOR 6 MONTHS AT A TIME - AND I WAS TOLD BY PREVIOUS SUPER THAT THEY WERE PERFECTLY FINE AS LONG AS THEY PAY ON TIME AND THEY WERE NOT DEEMED " NOT LIVING THERE OR HAVING ANOTHER PLACE OF " PRIMARY RESIDENCE " . I MIGHT BE WRONG , BUT I WAS YNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT AS LONG YOU PAY ON TIME , DONT COMMIT CRIME WHILE YOU ARE INSIDE THE PREMISES - NO QUESTIONS WOULD BE ASKED WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE THERE POR THAT IT IS NOT YOUR " PRIMARY RESIDENCE "
WHAT ABOUT WHEN AND IF I AM ON VACATION WHICH IS EXTENDED ( LIKE A MONTH AT THE TIME ) ( WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN VERY OFTEN ) BUT STILL - AM I SUPPOSED TO LET THEM KNOW EVERY TIME THAT I AM LIVING .
IS IT NOT WHAT I DESCRIBED AS THEIR " THREATENING UNREASONABLE " PRACTICES , AND SHOULD THEY SUE ME , VAN I COUNTERSUE ( WHICH , OBVIOUSLY , I TRY TO AVOID .
AND CAN THEY USE IT NOT ONLY FOR EVICTION PURPOSES , BUT ALSO FOR NON-RENEWAL PURPOSES .
THANKS , AGAIN , IN ADVANCE .
Expert:  Barrister replied 1 year ago.
WHAT CAN POLICE ACCESS HAVE TO DO WITH "FIRE HAZARD "?.That is probably part of the bluff....As for making them happy, that is going to be a judgment call as to whether they try to take some action alleging a fire code violation. But to be very blunt, if your apartment looks like an episode of that show "Hoarders", then it is not going to be hard for the landlord to prove their case that it is a fire and safety hazard.....WHEN YOU MENTION THAT TENANT HAS TO " MAINTAIN THE UNIT AS HIS / HER PRIMARY RESIDENCE " - ANY CONCRETE DEFINIT9VE LEGAL CRITERIA FOR THAT ?.That is directly from the NYC Rent Guidelines Board so those are their words. This is what they say about primary residence:.c) Primary residence. The housing accommodation is not occupied by the tenant, not including subtenants or occupants, as his or her primary residence, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; provided, however, that no action or proceeding shall be commenced seeking to recover possession on the ground that the housing accommodation is not occupied by the tenant as his or her primary residence unless the owner or lessor shall have given 30 days' notice to the tenant of his or her intention to commence such action or proceeding on such grounds. Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title..RSC 2520.6(u)(u) Primary residence. Although no single factor shall be solely determinative, evidence which may be considered in determining whether a housing accommodation subject to this Code is occupied as a primary residence shall include, without limitation, such factors as listed below:(1) specification by an occupant of an address other than such housing accommodation as a place of residence on any tax return, motor vehicle registration, driver's license or other document filed with a public agency;(2) use by an occupant of an address other than such housing accommodation as a voting address;(3) occupancy of the housing accommodation for an aggregate of less than 183 days in the most recent calendar year, except for temporary periods of relocation pursuant to section 2523.5(b)(2) of this Title; and(4) subletting of the housing accommodation..How to prove that?....no clue....maybe have someone like a private investigator follow you and monitor what you are doing...The reason why they would want to terminate and evict you is that they could then rent the property at a higher rate....thanksBarrister
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
THANKS ONCE AGAIN FOR YOUR ANSWER .1. SHORT OF HAVING PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR , MY ASSUMPTION ( PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG - I AM NOT A LAWYER ) IS THAT MERE OBSERVATION OF ME AND HOW MANY TIMES THEY SEE ME IN A FIXED TIME PERIOD CANNOT EVEN AND ITSELF BE DETERMINATIVE AND SERVE AS LEGAL GROUNDS TO POSTULATE THAT I DONT LIVE THERE AND/OR THAT IT IS NOT MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE ?2. THANK FOR THOSE DIRECT QUOTES - THEY ARE VERY HELPFUL . I READ THEM CAREFULLY, AND , BASED ON MY SITUATION , I ACOMPLY WITH ALL 4 DETERMINANTS OF WHETHER IT IS PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF MINE OR NOT , I OFFICIALLY FILE TAXES AT THAT ADDRESS , I VOTE AT THAT ADDRESS , ALL MY BUSINESS FILINGS WITH US GOVERNMENT IS FROM THAT ADDRESS , MY DRIVERS LICENSE LISTS THAT ADDRESS , ALL MY BILLS ( CELL PHONE, CREDIT CARDS, BANK STATEMENTS ) ARE FROM THAT ADDRESS . THE ONLY EXCEPTION ARE MY UTILITY BILLS ( GAS , ELECTRICITY BILLS ) WHERE MY MOTHER IS LISTED ( SHE WAS A TENANT THER TILL 2009 AND I NEVER CHANGED THEM , EVEN THOUGH SHE MOVED TO ANOTHER ADDRESS - I NOW FEEL THAT IT MAY COME BACK TO HAUNT ME AND BE USED AGAINST ME IN THAT CASE ) - I TOOK OVER THE LEASE IN 2009 AND SHE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEASE ANYMORE ( SHE HAS A KEY , AND IF I AM BUSY AND SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE THER , SHE " COVERS FOR ME " ) .3. FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOVE , MY TAKE IS THAT THE "MESS" IS HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION , AND THRESHHOLD FOR IT IS VERY LOW - AND AS SOON AS THEY SHOW PICTURE TO THE JUDGE , THE JUDGE WILL BE CONVINCED THAT IT IS A MESS . AND IF THAT IS THE CASE , WILL THAT SUBJECTIVE NON-LEGAL OPINION EVEN AND ITSELF BE USED AS LEGAL GROUNS TO PROCEED WITH
A . EVICTION AND B . NON-RENEWAL4 . CAN THE FACT THAT THE SUPER , IN MY OPINION , ENTERED TYE APARTMENT ON DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT GROUNDS AND UNDER FALSE PREMISES. HERE HOW IT HAPPENED . HE CALLED ME AND ASKED FOR ME TO GIVE HIM ACCESS SINCE , HE SAID , " THERE WAS A LEAK SEEMINGLY COMING FROM MY APARTMENT " . I SAID , I WILL BE BUSY , BUT I WILL ASK MY MOM TO LET HIM IN . HE NEVER MENTIONED THAT IT IS NOT REALLY A " LEAK " , BUT IT WOULD BE AS AN EXCUSE TO GET INTO APARTMENT , SINCE ONCE HE WAS INSIDE . HE QUICKLY WENT TO " POTENTIAL SITES OF LEAK " - QUICKLY FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO LEAK ( WHICH HE WAS NOT , ACCORDING TO MY MOM , EVEN SURPRISED ABOUT - SINCE IT WAS JUST AN EXCUSE TO START WITH AND THERE WAS NO LEAK - AND , BY THE WAY , I TOLD HIM , THAT BEFORE HIM , PREVIOUS SUPER WAS COMING IN LOOKING FOR LEAK AND FOUND NOTHING - WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS NO LEAK TO START FROM IN THE BEGINNING ) .
SO , WHEN HE CAME , IMMEDIATELY AFTER FINDING " NO LEAK " WHICH HE WAS NOT SURPRISED BY , SINCE HE REALLY KNEW , HE WAS NOT REALLY LOOKING FOR ONE,
HE QUICKLY PROCEEDED TO TAKE PICTURES , AND WHEN MY MOM ASKED HIM WHY HE WAS TAKING PICTURES AND " MY SON DID NOT AUTHORISE THIS " , HE IGNORED IT , GAVE NO ANSWER TO HER REQUEST FOR TAKING PICTURES EXPLANATION , AND KEPT ON TAKING PICTURES . WHEN HE WAS LEAVING , HE BRIFLY SAID "THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME IN " - WHICH MEANS I COULD HAVE REFUSED HIM THE ENTRANCE ?
4. THE FACT THAT I WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT THERE , DID NOT EXPECT HIM TO TAKE PICTURES ( I WAS UNDER THE " LEAK FINDING EXPEDITION " ASSUMPTION ) , DID NOT AUTHORISE HIM TAKING PICTURES , THAT I ( THE ACTUAL LEASEHOLDER - MY MOM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT - SHE WAS JUST " COVERING FOR ME ") - CAN ALL THAT BE USED TO CRACK AND DISCREDIT THEIR "POTENTIAL STILL" CASE AGAINST ME , AND /OR POTENTIALLY COUNTERSUE .
5. COULD YOU , PLEASE , HELP ME TO INTERPRET THE :
c) Primary residence. The housing accommodation is not occupied by the tenant, not including subtenants or occupants, as his or her primary residence, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; provided, however, that no action or proceeding shall be commenced seeking to recover possession on the ground that the housing accommodation is not occupied by the tenant as his or her primary residence unless the owner or lessor shall have given 30 days' notice to the tenant of his or her intention to commence such action or proceeding on such grounds. Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title .
I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY ON ONE HAND IT SAYS THAT SOLELY BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIT IS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANT CANNOT BE USED AS GROUNDS FOR RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS , BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT SAYS - " unless the owner or lessor shall have given 30 days' notice to the tenant of his or her intention to commence such action or proceeding on such grounds. Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title " .
AND IT REFERS HERE TO Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title " - WHAT IS THAT section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title .
6. SO " HOARDING " AS LANLORD REP CALLED IT TODAY AND SHE ALSO USED WORD STARTING WITH "C" ( I FORGOT THE FULL WORD ) THAT IT NECESSARY IS THAT JUDGE AGREE -IS IT LEGAL?
Expert:  Barrister replied 1 year ago.
IS THAT MERE OBSERVATION OF ME AND HOW MANY TIMES THEY SEE ME IN A FIXED TIME PERIOD CANNOT EVEN AND ITSELF BE DETERMINATIVE AND SERVE AS LEGAL GROUNDS TO POSTULATE THAT I DONT LIVE THERE AND/OR THAT IT IS NOT MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE ?.Correct, the burden is on the landlord to prove that you aren't living there, not on you that you are..FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOVE , MY TAKE IS THAT THE "MESS" IS HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION , AND THRESHHOLD FOR IT IS VERY LOW - AND AS SOON AS THEY SHOW PICTURE TO THE JUDGE , THE JUDGE WILL BE CONVINCED THAT IT IS A MESS . AND IF THAT IS THE CASE , WILL THAT SUBJECTIVE NON-LEGAL OPINION EVEN AND ITSELF BE USED AS LEGAL GROUNS TO PROCEED WITH A . EVICTION AND B . NON-RENEWAL.Correct again, they just have to prove to the judge that it is some type of fire code violation. They would likely do this by asking a fire official to inspect the property and then issue a citation that they would then use to try and terminate..As for him entering under presumably false pretences, by law a landlord can inspect with a 24 hour notice unless there is an emergency, and then they can enter without notice. So if the landlord actually did have a leak anywhere near your dwelling, he could use that as an excuse to enter and claim that he was looking for the leak..Basically I interpret the primary residence language to mean that it is a subjective determination to be made by a judge after both sides present any evidence that they have... It isn't going to be a "16 boxes of stuff is ok, 17 is illegal" kind of thing. A judge will look at the evidence and then make a ruling if they are going to pursue this in court..If you feel your original question and any related follow ups have been answered, I would very much appreciate a positive rating on the answer I have provided so I receive credit for my work. If you have a new question the JustAnswer folks require that you start a new question page, but you can request me by putting "For Barrister" in the caption and they will get it to me...thanksBarrister
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR ANSWER .
I STILL HAVE THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE OVERLOOKED AND THEREFORE LEFT ANANSWERED5. COULD YOU , PLEASE , HELP ME TO INTERPRET THE :
c) Primary residence. The housing accommodation is not occupied by the tenant, not including subtenants or occupants, as his or her primary residence, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; provided, however, that no action or proceeding shall be commenced seeking to recover possession on the ground that the housing accommodation is not occupied by the tenant as his or her primary residence unless the owner or lessor shall have given 30 days' notice to the tenant of his or her intention to commence such action or proceeding on such grounds. Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title .
I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY ON ONE HAND IT SAYS THAT SOLELY BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIT IS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANT CANNOT BE USED AS GROUNDS FOR RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS , BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT SAYS - " unless the owner or lessor shall have given 30 days' notice to the tenant of his or her intention to commence such action or proceeding on such grounds. Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title " .
AND IT REFERS HERE TO Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title " - WHAT IS THAT section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title .
2. SO " HOARDING " AS LANLORD REP CALLED IT TODAY AND SHE ALSO USED WORD STARTING WITH "C" ( I FORGOT THE FULL WORD ) - SO IF LANDLORD CLAIMS THAT THEN ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT JUDGE AGREE WITH THEM BASED ON HIS SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT THAT IS NOT BASED ON THE CONCRETE UNAMBIGUOUS , NOT VAGUE , LEGAL DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR THAT - IS IT LEGAL ?3. WHAT KIND OF DEFENSE , AND OR RECOURSE DO I HAVE UNDER MY SITUATON . WHAT IS YOUR OPINION IN THAT .THANKS IN ADVANCE .
Expert:  Barrister replied 1 year ago.
I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY ON ONE HAND IT SAYS THAT SOLELY BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIT IS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANT CANNOT BE USED AS GROUNDS FOR RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS , BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT SAYS - " unless the owner or lessor shall have given 30 days' notice to the tenant of his or her intention to commence such action or proceeding on such grounds. Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title " .AND IT REFERS HERE TO Such notice may be combined with the notice required by section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title ".I take that to mean that they can't try to terminate and evict based solely on them claiming you aren't living there unless they first give you a 30 day written notice that they are going to do so..WHAT IS THAT section 2524.2(c) (2) of this Title .. NYCRR § 2524.2§ 2524.2 Termination notices (c) Every such notice shall be served upon the tenant:(1) in the case of a notice based upon section 2524.3(f) of this Part, at least 15 days prior to the date specified therein for the surrender of possession; or(2) in the case of a notice on any other ground pursuant to section 2524.3, at least seven calendar days prior to the date specified therein for the surrender of possession, or in the case of a notice pursuant to section 2524.4(c) of this Part, at least 90 and not more than 150 days prior to the expiration of the lease term; or.SO IF LANDLORD CLAIMS THAT THEN ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT JUDGE AGREE WITH THEM BASED ON HIS SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT THAT IS NOT BASED ON THE CONCRETE UNAMBIGUOUS , NOT VAGUE , LEGAL DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR THAT - IS IT LEGAL ?.Correct. That is what judges do...they review evidence and then make a judgment about whether something is a violation or not..3. WHAT KIND OF DEFENSE , AND OR RECOURSE DO I HAVE UNDER MY SITUATON . WHAT IS YOUR OPINION IN THAT ..Honestly...if the place is full of stuff ceiling to floor, you are going to have to get rid of a lot of stuff so you can take pictures of an uncluttered, clean dwelling so you can show the judge you cleared it out and cleaned it up and there is no longer any basis for the eviction. If you aren't living there now over half the time, you are going to have to start doing so or they are going to ding you there next. ..thanksBarrister
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOU ANSWERSO FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING FOR THE " PRIMARY RESIDENCE EVICTION ISSUE " - THEY CANT USE AS GROUNDS FOR EVICTION , BUT THEN THEY TURN AROUND AND SAY " UNLESS 30DAY NOTICE " - SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF THEY DO 30 DAY NOTICE - THEN EVEN THAT THEY CAN USE FOR EVICTION . SO , IF THEY FEEL YOU DONT LIVE THERE , AND YOY HAVE YO0UR TAXES , VOTE , CREDIT CARDS, BANK ACCOUNTS , CELL PHONE ACCOUNTS AT THAT ADDRESS . EVEN THAT IS NOT THE PROOF
SO , THEY CAN DO WHAEVER THEY WANT - ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS SEND 30-DAY NOTICE . SOTHERE IS NO LAW FOR THEM . THEY CAN DO ANYTHING .
IF THAT IS THE CASE , SHOULD I EVEN HIRE A LAWYER OR I SHOULD SILENTLY GIVE UP AND GIVE IN TO THEM AND SAY " YES , MY MASTERS , DO WITH ME WHAT YOU WANT . I AM DEFENSELESS .YOU ARE THE KINGS . I SURRENDER "I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS STATEMENT . IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU . IT IS JUST THAT THE PICTURE IS HOPELESS AND BLECK
IS IT NOT?THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR ANSWER
Expert:  Barrister replied 1 year ago.
No, you are interpreting that wrong...If they are going to claim you aren't living there as your primary residence, and there are no other violations, then they have to give you a written 30 day notice that they are going to try and file a case to prove that you don't live there as your primary residence 30 days later. It doesn't mean that they automatically win, they still have to prove that you aren't living there. And if you meet most of those requirements we went over earlier, then they might have a hard time proving it since you have proof it is your primary residence..So if they give you a 30 day, then you need to live there from then on. It would probably be best if you went ahead and started living there again already constantly if you aren't already doing so because every day you are there is another day they can't prove you live elsewhere. If you are living somewhere else and are just using the place for storage, then the landlord does have a point in their claims... Why they care, I can't imagine, but they would have a justifiable claim.....thanksBarrister
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR ANSWER !IT IS INTERESTING THAT ACCORDING TO NY LAW , IT TAKES LANDLORD 6 MONTHS TO GET RID OF THE NON-PAYING TENANT - EVEN THEN HE WILL NOT PAY.BUT FOR NUISANCE OF "PRIMARY RESIDENCE " AND SUBJECTIVE EXCUSE OF CLUTTER AND MADE UP EXCUSE OF FIRE HAZARD ( WHICH YOU CAN USE TO JUSTIFY ANYTHING AND ALL IN THE APARTMENT ) SINCE UNLESS IT IS EMPTY , EVERYTHING CAN BE EXCUSED AS FIRE HAZARD . BUT THAT IS PROPASTROUS .I AM SORRY ONCE AGAIN FOR MY FRUSTRATION . IN NO WAY , IS IT DIRECTED AT YOU . I JUST CANT UNDERSTAND IT .I DID NOT GET THE ANSWER FOR PREVIOUS QUESTION . AS WEL I HOPE YOU ANSWER / COMMENT TO THIS ONE.YOU ANSWER IS , AS USUAL , GREATELY APPRECIATED .
WILL BE WAITING
Expert:  Barrister replied 1 year ago.
I am not sure which question you are referring to....I have to log off in a few minutes for my regular job in the morning but will check back in when I am back in my office...Barrister
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I MEANT THE LAST TWO QUESTIONHS THAT WERE LEFT UNANSWERED .1. THE FIRST QUESTION TIMED AT 11-54 ON MAY , 10 ON MY SCREEN AND IT STARTED WITH : " SO FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING FOR THE " PRIMARY RESIDENCE EVICTION ISSUE " .2. THE SECOND QUESTION TIMED AT 12-22-2016 MAY 11 ON MY SCREEN AND STARTS WITH : " IT IS INTERESTING THAT ACCORDING TO NY LAW ".I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS YOUR TIME ZONE . I AM IN EASTERN US TIME ZONE ( NYC ) . PLEASE ACCOUNT FOR THAT .WOULD YOU PLEASE KINDLY ANSWER THEM TOMORROW WHEN YOU START . YOUR HELP IS GREATELY APPRECIATED . THANKS IN ADVANCE
Expert:  Barrister replied 1 year ago.
1. THE FIRST QUESTION TIMED AT 11-54 ON MAY , 10 ON MY SCREEN AND IT STARTED WITH : " SO FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING FOR THE " PRIMARY RESIDENCE EVICTION ISSUE " ..I answered that question in my last response.. I will copy it again..No, you are interpreting that wrong...If they are going to claim you aren't living there as your primary residence, and there are no other violations, then they have to give you a written 30 day notice that they are going to try and file a case to prove that you don't live there as your primary residence 30 days later. It doesn't mean that they automatically win, they still have to prove that you aren't living there. And if you meet most of those requirements we went over earlier, then they might have a hard time proving it since you have proof it is your primary residence..So if they give you a 30 day, then you need to live there from then on. It would probably be best if you went ahead and started living there again already constantly if you aren't already doing so because every day you are there is another day they can't prove you live elsewhere. If you are living somewhere else and are just using the place for storage, then the landlord does have a point in their claims... Why they care, I can't imagine, but they would have a justifiable claim....2. THE SECOND QUESTION TIMED AT 12-22-2016 MAY 11 ON MY SCREEN AND STARTS WITH : " IT IS INTERESTING THAT ACCORDING TO NY LAW "..IT IS INTERESTING THAT ACCORDING TO NY LAW , IT TAKES LANDLORD 6 MONTHS TO GET RID OF THE NON-PAYING TENANT - EVEN THEN HE WILL NOT PAY.BUT FOR NUISANCE OF "PRIMARY RESIDENCE " AND SUBJECTIVE EXCUSE OF CLUTTER AND MADE UP EXCUSE OF FIRE HAZARD ( WHICH YOU CAN USE TO JUSTIFY ANYTHING AND ALL IN THE APARTMENT ) SINCE UNLESS IT IS EMPTY , EVERYTHING CAN BE EXCUSED AS FIRE HAZARD . BUT THAT IS PROPASTROUS ...There is no question there... That is all just a statement followed by an opinion...If you feel your original question and any related follow ups have been answered, I would very much appreciate a positive rating on the answer I have provided so I receive credit for my work. If you have a new-question the JustAnswer folks require that you start a new question page, but you can request me by putting "For Barrister" in the caption and they will get it to me...thanksBarrister

Related Real Estate Law Questions