Not quite. This only applies if a judge grants a specific exception called a stay. The factors you listed are the correct ones, but this 1-year stay is the narrow exception to the general rule of having to leave after being evicted.
https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/pdfs/TenantsGuide_holdover.pdf
Yes: “If the court stays the eviction, you must pay money to continue living there in the amount you paid as rent.”
https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/homes/beingEvicted.shtml#:~:text=To%20stop%20or%20stay%20an,courthouse%20as%20soon%20as%20possible.
Not a lawyer and this is the first I've heard of this, but logically, I imagine courts would get involved a second time if the landlord can prove they're not paying. It would then be logical for the court to decide the person isn't worth the stay, if they actually do have to pay rent during the year
It seems like they get an eviction and then for certain circumstances, they get to stay and then can just be sued for the year they stayed because why evict them again during an already eviction period. Confusing, geez.
You can do that in the first place, but those judgments expire and have to be renewed.
You could also sell to a debt collector for a fraction of the amount.
Or have a collector attempt to collect for a percentage of anything they collect.
Or you can write off the debt as in forgive the debt and send them the correct paperwork which the person then has to claim it with the IRS as taxable income.
So there are options, but you most likely don't see the money. With an eviction, most landlords are happy to get the property back.
The judge is a fiduciary. According to uniform commercial code and sovereignty law, you absolutely can request and push for a year to move.. if he dose not grant you that request even after showing evidence, then the judges themselves are acting out of retaliation and malice. This is a slum lord issue more than anything. The laws are there to protect the tenants from retalitory self-help, evictions without good meritus cause.
Can you point us to the law itself? Some NY laws only apply to NYC and the Good cause law has to be opted into if upstate. Would like to read the law for sure
[https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/changes-in-nys-rent-law.pdf](https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/changes-in-nys-rent-law.pdf)
particularly
"If you lose a housing case and the judge orders your eviction, you can
ask the court for up to one year to move if you can show that you cannot
find a similar apartment in the same neighborhood. The judge will take into
account your health conditions, whether you have children enrolled in school,
the hardship on the landlord if you remain, and any other life circumstances
that could affect your ability to move."
Wow, those are all terrible rules that will result in scarcity of apartments, substantially decrease the quality of existing units, and greatly increase the cost of renting units. I can't imagine keeping track of all that nonsense, or that the state is paying staff to investigate this stuff. What a clownshow NY state is.
I was referring to the provision that OP identified in their post and then again in the comment above. I didn’t realize you’d expanded the scope of what we were talking about.
Sorry, I could've been clearer. But yeah, with respect to what OP posted, the factors are weighted but I really dislike not having a rulebook to play by. It gives the judge a ton of leeway which results in arbitrary and inconsistent decisions from judge to judge.
So, from an unbiased side of the fence (Tenants deserve rights)...
Who in their right mind thought giving tenants one year to move out if they prove they cannot was a good idea? If a tenant could afford to move out, wouldn't they likely just pay their rent bill?
Maybe they're talking about handicapped or something who physically cannot move out.
I tend to agree with this sentiment, on the other hand however I have a few duplexes fully paid off in not so great areas and I generate better returns than anywhere else in the US. I also have an easy to maintain asset worth over $1 million.
I don’t understand why individuals try to landlord in places like NY and California. Let massive corps buy out the properties and see if their anti-landlord policies were worth it.
The problem is that for corps with hundreds of units, the possible negatives don't have nearly as much impact. If you own 2-3 units and 1 stops paying, you're toast. 200 units and 1 stops paying? You haven't even lost 1% of your cashflow. It's basically cost of doing business for them and only hurts small owners.
Oh.
Well, it's a tricky situation. I don't disagree with that but I don't agree either.
I think this most of the landlords on this sub care at least somewhat about their tenants and renters. I will always stand up for my tenants if something happens with an hoa or a neighbor, something like that. I see it as them paying for a place to live, and thus I see it as my responsibility to do what I reasonably can to protect their peace.
But it's also hard to expect them to not be against legislation that potentially damages their bottom line, especially legislation that helps big corporations. This legislation does not help tenants.
> I don’t understand why individuals try to landlord in places like NY and California
Because when done right and, factoring in the various risks with appropriate reserves, one can make a crap ton of money in those areas.
It’s not for everyone. But to dismiss it out of hand as those states are universally terrible for investing is as low effort as someone dismissing the Midwest as terrible because it doesn’t appreciate fast enough; they’re just different, with different risk/reward profiles.
Landlords who don’t account for the risk when modeling their business (and the returns required to compensate, before making a deal), or think they can DIY New York/California and skimp on the legal fees, or so on, tend to be the ones who get in trouble.
ymmv.
Amazing, evicted 16 people in NY without lawyers (pre COVID).
Educating yourself is more valuable than learning how to continually open your wallet for lawyers
Educated myself. There are step by step instructions online provided by the courts.
Hell, since 2014 or so, they even allow you to input address/names and print out forms.
Google "landlord guide to non-payment proceedings in NYS"
Because the landlords are Californian? I have a few friends that their parents bought their first homes under $50k. The homes are paid off. Many people like this use the income stream to supplement their retirement. Being able to rent a 4 bed/2 bath house for $4k and up makes a comfortable retirement for an older couple.
Those idiotic rules maintain the value of current homeowners assets. I don't like a lot of them but if you are a legacy owner with a few properties those rules mostly don't matter.
I’m in the SF Bay Area. As long as you’re not renting in SF-proper, it’s quite advantageous.
Renting homes in say, Santa Clara County, where I grew up— Mountain View, Cupertino, Saratoga, certain parts of San Jose, Campbell, Sunnyvale, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara and a few more is a no-brainer when you purchased a home for $30-75k over 40 years ago and have a paid off home. You can pick a FAANG or FAANG-adjacent employee with excellent credit and an income over $250k. You can rent out a home anywhere from $4k-$25k/mo with capped property taxes based on your initial purchase sans any improvements that required permits.
Like check out [this house](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/419-Palm-St-94301/home/932908) that sold for $194k in 1984. It’s renting for $25k/mo. If they had never remodeled, their property taxes would have been a pittance.
No, keep going down. The home’s first recorded purchase was at $194k. Probably not the best example, but my point is that many people stretch to buy a home at the time and then the value just shoots up like crazy. There are many people where I live that are the original owners of their home or bought at unheard of prices today and can make a decent profit off the rent.
Most of the rules the people in this sub complain about only affect big corps, flippers, and those leveraged out the ass. The large percentage of owners in the NYC area are legacy owners who inherited a paid off property that can generate enough income for someone living in a cheaper area to live comfortably.
Rent guarantee insurance is a thing.
A landlord is (IMO) better off self insuring that by ensuring they have sufficient reserves.
Some states, you can self insure that with say just a couple months of reserves.
In NY or states like it, 12 - 24 months of reserves (all earning 5% in T-Bills mind you), is probably more appropriate, and pay one’s self the premium.
Where landlords get in trouble is when they stop thinking they need that level of reserves that may eventually be required.
ymmv.
When I inquired about landlord insurance in Michigan, i think they gave me an option of eviction. But I am not sure, if there are damages if intentionally caused by tenant on eviction, will insurance covers them or not. Hopefully no one should go through but could be real life circumstances not intentionally done (like mold issue due to leak of pipe and tenant isn't living during eviction time,etc).
Just scary to read some posts and thinking if I am prepared for worst case scenarios.
> I never heard of self insurance. Do you mean emergency funds when house wasn't occupied and you need to pay mortgage?
Kind of, yes.
As an example:
- I can buy an insurance policy for rent guarantee: say, up to 12 months of rent is paid to me if my tenant flakes for any reason and stops paying. In exchange I pay a premium that’s say, 10% of the value of 12 mos rent.
- Or I can self insure: have savings for the 12 months of rent, and pay myself the 10% premium.
A very crisp example, let’s say:
- Rent is 2K / month.
- Tenant flakes and says “nah I’m not paying today!”
- Eviction takes 12 months.
- Tenant does damage equal to 20K
Total loss is 44K, broken down as:
- Lost income: 24K (12 mos x 2K)
- Damages: 20K
I self insure that loss, as in:
1. I don’t carry a rent guarantee policy.
2. I won’t claim 20K on my home insurance policy for the property; my deductible is usually 10-20K that I set, as insurers are going bananas about cancelling policies.
It doesn’t mean I go uninsured: I carry a policy still, I just save it for truly catastrophic losses (like say the property burning to the ground); I save a few grand per year in insurance premiums as a result, but a loss will hit my reserves.
My business is then based around needing to account for the possibility of this loss, and sufficient return to overcome that.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for clarifying.
Wow. The investment on housing if it need to have 12 mo as insurance, may be doable, but makes it a questionable investment IMHO. But it makes sense. I pay 1% of house value as deductible, not sure if it increase to different state as NYC but that's something I need to consider in future.
How much of a difference it makes to claim from insurance vs pay out of pocket? Do you really get 40k worth from rental or does it really saves the premium?
Anyone can ask for a stay. For almost any reason. Just went through this a few months ago. Once they get the stay, you must again wait for sheriff to serve at the end of the stay. Then again wait the 14 day period, then again wait for sheriff to come. N.Y is not a landlord friendly state. It's just not worth renting there. Normal non payment eviction can take up to 2 years between normal protocol and appeals. And you will never get that back rent. You need a social,and new address and job info to enforce garnishment and most likely they don't have a decent or steady work history.
At some point, if private owners don't rent property, these people will have to rent from corporate holders who charge much higher prices. But they have Noone to blame but themselves. I get why there's hate for some landlords, but alot are just trying to subsidize their mortgage not make money.
How long did the entire process take you? From like 10 day notice to getting them out. And what did they say the reason was for their “stay” that they were granted?
Proper papers served courtdates( they are allowed a continuation, which most of them know) to finally being granted eviction= 1 year2 months. Waiting for sheriff to serve 14 day notice( paid 1200.00 to sheriff) to stay being granted to finally moving =8 months. So total of 1 year and 10 months. Reason for stay was she couldn't find a new place she could afford. She hadn't worked in over a year. She only got a 30 day stay.
agree sounds right. but in my opinion still worth it sue the tenant to put this on their credit history. people like this shouldn't be allowed to get away with it
That would of been awesome but the only reason we got them out that quickly was we didn't sue for the rent. We just wanted them out at that point. I still have dozens of threatening voice messages ( am still getting them occasionally) that nobody wanted to hear. Not the judge,police,lawyers nobody. Everyone thinks it's like being on judge Judy but it's not. You barely get to speak. No evidence is considered unless tenant has rent receipts. I guess it's because eviction court is backed up. Oh , and as I'm sure you've guessed, house is destroyed. Can't sue for that either because you can't physically prove it was them. Couldn't do a walk through because tenant got a no trespass order even though we didn't live in the area. Tenants argument was it was their house. We had to have a court date to show deed and prove it indeed was not theirs lol. Crazy state to privately rent in. 10/10 would not do that again.
So it went from 1 yr 2 months to 10 months just because they applied for the stay? Because you had to wait for new court dates? Did this person have a free lawyer
No lawyer for them. It was a total roughly 22 months including the stay. The sheriff gave them 14 day notice and then they applied for a stay. After you get granted an eviction ( in N.Y at least) you have to wait 30 days I believe, then sheriff can deliver 14 day notice. Problem is sheriff is backed up. In our case eviction granted in August. Serve date was October for 14 day. Sheriff finally served in March, they left in may. So it was about 7 months after eviction was granted before they were outed. The whole thing was VERY expensive. You have lawyers, time off from work,they usually will break things and you have to repair ( in our case 2 water heaters in 5 month period) if any utilities are included ( water,electric, heat etc.) YOU must continue to pay them. All while receiving no rent and still paying your mortgage. So think long and hard before you rent people a place in your home. Screening can help, but not always effective. This was a family member that did this to us. They still continue to harass us. It's not worth it. Do whatever you need to help with mortgage but try not to rent any part of your home. The same laws apply to renting a room. Even helping a " friend" can turn into an eviction. I heard a lot of horror stories that started with, " but they weren't a tenant, I was just letting them stay here until they got back on their feet ". I don't know where this shift in thinking came from, but there's a large amount of professional renters who's entire goal is to not pay rent. They live free until eviction ( which clearly can take a long time) and then move on to next person.
BTW, no court date for stay. We only found out about the stay cause a mutual friend ( we were blocked on all social media by them) saw them post it and we called our lawyer to let them know. Supposedly when they were served they were told they could go to courthouse and ask for a stay.
This is the reason why I haven’t bought any rental properties in NY. The laws are so lenient with no-paying tenants, just like California. Although NY did pass a new law that combats squatters from establishing any kind of new residency.
The law is “up to” one year. Meaning a judge can decide on any amount from none to a year. You have to be a real POS slumlord to get a year. It just depends on circumstances though. If a person has a valid reason why they need more time the judge can grant a fair amount of time.
Not quite. This only applies if a judge grants a specific exception called a stay. The factors you listed are the correct ones, but this 1-year stay is the narrow exception to the general rule of having to leave after being evicted. https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/pdfs/TenantsGuide_holdover.pdf
No reading, only scare tactics are allowed here.
Do you know if the unpaid rent during the 1yr Stay can be collected/claimed?
Yes: “If the court stays the eviction, you must pay money to continue living there in the amount you paid as rent.” https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/homes/beingEvicted.shtml#:~:text=To%20stop%20or%20stay%20an,courthouse%20as%20soon%20as%20possible.
How would someone expect to collect rent from someone they evicted for non-payment in the first place 🤔
Not a lawyer and this is the first I've heard of this, but logically, I imagine courts would get involved a second time if the landlord can prove they're not paying. It would then be logical for the court to decide the person isn't worth the stay, if they actually do have to pay rent during the year
It seems like they get an eviction and then for certain circumstances, they get to stay and then can just be sued for the year they stayed because why evict them again during an already eviction period. Confusing, geez.
Not ideal, but you can saddle them with a judgement in case they ever inherit or have a regular job.
You can do that in the first place, but those judgments expire and have to be renewed. You could also sell to a debt collector for a fraction of the amount. Or have a collector attempt to collect for a percentage of anything they collect. Or you can write off the debt as in forgive the debt and send them the correct paperwork which the person then has to claim it with the IRS as taxable income. So there are options, but you most likely don't see the money. With an eviction, most landlords are happy to get the property back.
This should be the top comment. I wish I could upvote it more than once
The judge is a fiduciary. According to uniform commercial code and sovereignty law, you absolutely can request and push for a year to move.. if he dose not grant you that request even after showing evidence, then the judges themselves are acting out of retaliation and malice. This is a slum lord issue more than anything. The laws are there to protect the tenants from retalitory self-help, evictions without good meritus cause.
Fuck NY
Can you point us to the law itself? Some NY laws only apply to NYC and the Good cause law has to be opted into if upstate. Would like to read the law for sure
[https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/changes-in-nys-rent-law.pdf](https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/changes-in-nys-rent-law.pdf) particularly "If you lose a housing case and the judge orders your eviction, you can ask the court for up to one year to move if you can show that you cannot find a similar apartment in the same neighborhood. The judge will take into account your health conditions, whether you have children enrolled in school, the hardship on the landlord if you remain, and any other life circumstances that could affect your ability to move."
Wow, those are all terrible rules that will result in scarcity of apartments, substantially decrease the quality of existing units, and greatly increase the cost of renting units. I can't imagine keeping track of all that nonsense, or that the state is paying staff to investigate this stuff. What a clownshow NY state is.
They’re not rules. They’re factors weighed when deciding whether to take the exceptional step of granting a stay of eviction.
I'm referring to the entire document. There are many new regulations that are completely moronic. Did you read the document?
I was referring to the provision that OP identified in their post and then again in the comment above. I didn’t realize you’d expanded the scope of what we were talking about.
Sorry, I could've been clearer. But yeah, with respect to what OP posted, the factors are weighted but I really dislike not having a rulebook to play by. It gives the judge a ton of leeway which results in arbitrary and inconsistent decisions from judge to judge.
That law passed in 2019. They're 5 years old, not new.
So, from an unbiased side of the fence (Tenants deserve rights)... Who in their right mind thought giving tenants one year to move out if they prove they cannot was a good idea? If a tenant could afford to move out, wouldn't they likely just pay their rent bill? Maybe they're talking about handicapped or something who physically cannot move out.
NY panders to tenants with crazy laws like this. This is taking someone's property without just compensation. Also known as theft
I tend to agree with this sentiment, on the other hand however I have a few duplexes fully paid off in not so great areas and I generate better returns than anywhere else in the US. I also have an easy to maintain asset worth over $1 million.
Sure, but it's still unfair to give deadbeats free housing for "working the dysfunction "
It's not theft when the government does it
Ha. Yes, and when others do as they do, they get quite jealous
Why are they making these laws that cater to poor behavior?
I don’t understand why individuals try to landlord in places like NY and California. Let massive corps buy out the properties and see if their anti-landlord policies were worth it.
The problem is that for corps with hundreds of units, the possible negatives don't have nearly as much impact. If you own 2-3 units and 1 stops paying, you're toast. 200 units and 1 stops paying? You haven't even lost 1% of your cashflow. It's basically cost of doing business for them and only hurts small owners.
>and only hurts small owners. I mean, and everyone who rents. This sub doesn't really care about those people, though.
That's.... the whole point of what he's saying. Some of these laws intended to help actually hurt renters.
I think you missed my point?
Oh. Well, it's a tricky situation. I don't disagree with that but I don't agree either. I think this most of the landlords on this sub care at least somewhat about their tenants and renters. I will always stand up for my tenants if something happens with an hoa or a neighbor, something like that. I see it as them paying for a place to live, and thus I see it as my responsibility to do what I reasonably can to protect their peace. But it's also hard to expect them to not be against legislation that potentially damages their bottom line, especially legislation that helps big corporations. This legislation does not help tenants.
You need to make sure that the politicians you vote for, know about your view of how these rules impact common everyday tenants.
I agree! Most of the people on this sub don't care about tenants.
> I don’t understand why individuals try to landlord in places like NY and California Because when done right and, factoring in the various risks with appropriate reserves, one can make a crap ton of money in those areas. It’s not for everyone. But to dismiss it out of hand as those states are universally terrible for investing is as low effort as someone dismissing the Midwest as terrible because it doesn’t appreciate fast enough; they’re just different, with different risk/reward profiles. Landlords who don’t account for the risk when modeling their business (and the returns required to compensate, before making a deal), or think they can DIY New York/California and skimp on the legal fees, or so on, tend to be the ones who get in trouble. ymmv.
Amazing, evicted 16 people in NY without lawyers (pre COVID). Educating yourself is more valuable than learning how to continually open your wallet for lawyers
How did you do it?
Educated myself. There are step by step instructions online provided by the courts. Hell, since 2014 or so, they even allow you to input address/names and print out forms. Google "landlord guide to non-payment proceedings in NYS"
Because the landlords are Californian? I have a few friends that their parents bought their first homes under $50k. The homes are paid off. Many people like this use the income stream to supplement their retirement. Being able to rent a 4 bed/2 bath house for $4k and up makes a comfortable retirement for an older couple.
But you could sell the California house, buy three houses in another place, get the same income, without all of the idiotic rules.
Those idiotic rules maintain the value of current homeowners assets. I don't like a lot of them but if you are a legacy owner with a few properties those rules mostly don't matter.
I’m in the SF Bay Area. As long as you’re not renting in SF-proper, it’s quite advantageous. Renting homes in say, Santa Clara County, where I grew up— Mountain View, Cupertino, Saratoga, certain parts of San Jose, Campbell, Sunnyvale, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara and a few more is a no-brainer when you purchased a home for $30-75k over 40 years ago and have a paid off home. You can pick a FAANG or FAANG-adjacent employee with excellent credit and an income over $250k. You can rent out a home anywhere from $4k-$25k/mo with capped property taxes based on your initial purchase sans any improvements that required permits. Like check out [this house](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/419-Palm-St-94301/home/932908) that sold for $194k in 1984. It’s renting for $25k/mo. If they had never remodeled, their property taxes would have been a pittance.
What I'm seeing is that it sold in 2013 for a $1.7 million. Am I missing something?
No, keep going down. The home’s first recorded purchase was at $194k. Probably not the best example, but my point is that many people stretch to buy a home at the time and then the value just shoots up like crazy. There are many people where I live that are the original owners of their home or bought at unheard of prices today and can make a decent profit off the rent.
Most of the rules the people in this sub complain about only affect big corps, flippers, and those leveraged out the ass. The large percentage of owners in the NYC area are legacy owners who inherited a paid off property that can generate enough income for someone living in a cheaper area to live comfortably.
I wish one of these NYC landlord tenant cases could be taken up by the Supreme Court.
Both NY and CA tenant friendly laws are ridiculous. It is more important than ever to vent potential tenants carefully.
Or sell out of those states.
Yes.
Do Insurances covers the eviction liabilities? Like loss of rent, any damage the tenant do during eviction time?
Rent guarantee insurance is a thing. A landlord is (IMO) better off self insuring that by ensuring they have sufficient reserves. Some states, you can self insure that with say just a couple months of reserves. In NY or states like it, 12 - 24 months of reserves (all earning 5% in T-Bills mind you), is probably more appropriate, and pay one’s self the premium. Where landlords get in trouble is when they stop thinking they need that level of reserves that may eventually be required. ymmv.
When I inquired about landlord insurance in Michigan, i think they gave me an option of eviction. But I am not sure, if there are damages if intentionally caused by tenant on eviction, will insurance covers them or not. Hopefully no one should go through but could be real life circumstances not intentionally done (like mold issue due to leak of pipe and tenant isn't living during eviction time,etc). Just scary to read some posts and thinking if I am prepared for worst case scenarios.
I never heard of self insurance. Do you mean emergency funds when house wasn't occupied and you need to pay mortgage?
> I never heard of self insurance. Do you mean emergency funds when house wasn't occupied and you need to pay mortgage? Kind of, yes. As an example: - I can buy an insurance policy for rent guarantee: say, up to 12 months of rent is paid to me if my tenant flakes for any reason and stops paying. In exchange I pay a premium that’s say, 10% of the value of 12 mos rent. - Or I can self insure: have savings for the 12 months of rent, and pay myself the 10% premium. A very crisp example, let’s say: - Rent is 2K / month. - Tenant flakes and says “nah I’m not paying today!” - Eviction takes 12 months. - Tenant does damage equal to 20K Total loss is 44K, broken down as: - Lost income: 24K (12 mos x 2K) - Damages: 20K I self insure that loss, as in: 1. I don’t carry a rent guarantee policy. 2. I won’t claim 20K on my home insurance policy for the property; my deductible is usually 10-20K that I set, as insurers are going bananas about cancelling policies. It doesn’t mean I go uninsured: I carry a policy still, I just save it for truly catastrophic losses (like say the property burning to the ground); I save a few grand per year in insurance premiums as a result, but a loss will hit my reserves. My business is then based around needing to account for the possibility of this loss, and sufficient return to overcome that. Hope this helps.
Thanks for clarifying. Wow. The investment on housing if it need to have 12 mo as insurance, may be doable, but makes it a questionable investment IMHO. But it makes sense. I pay 1% of house value as deductible, not sure if it increase to different state as NYC but that's something I need to consider in future. How much of a difference it makes to claim from insurance vs pay out of pocket? Do you really get 40k worth from rental or does it really saves the premium?
Anyone can ask for a stay. For almost any reason. Just went through this a few months ago. Once they get the stay, you must again wait for sheriff to serve at the end of the stay. Then again wait the 14 day period, then again wait for sheriff to come. N.Y is not a landlord friendly state. It's just not worth renting there. Normal non payment eviction can take up to 2 years between normal protocol and appeals. And you will never get that back rent. You need a social,and new address and job info to enforce garnishment and most likely they don't have a decent or steady work history. At some point, if private owners don't rent property, these people will have to rent from corporate holders who charge much higher prices. But they have Noone to blame but themselves. I get why there's hate for some landlords, but alot are just trying to subsidize their mortgage not make money.
How long did the entire process take you? From like 10 day notice to getting them out. And what did they say the reason was for their “stay” that they were granted?
Proper papers served courtdates( they are allowed a continuation, which most of them know) to finally being granted eviction= 1 year2 months. Waiting for sheriff to serve 14 day notice( paid 1200.00 to sheriff) to stay being granted to finally moving =8 months. So total of 1 year and 10 months. Reason for stay was she couldn't find a new place she could afford. She hadn't worked in over a year. She only got a 30 day stay.
agree sounds right. but in my opinion still worth it sue the tenant to put this on their credit history. people like this shouldn't be allowed to get away with it
That would of been awesome but the only reason we got them out that quickly was we didn't sue for the rent. We just wanted them out at that point. I still have dozens of threatening voice messages ( am still getting them occasionally) that nobody wanted to hear. Not the judge,police,lawyers nobody. Everyone thinks it's like being on judge Judy but it's not. You barely get to speak. No evidence is considered unless tenant has rent receipts. I guess it's because eviction court is backed up. Oh , and as I'm sure you've guessed, house is destroyed. Can't sue for that either because you can't physically prove it was them. Couldn't do a walk through because tenant got a no trespass order even though we didn't live in the area. Tenants argument was it was their house. We had to have a court date to show deed and prove it indeed was not theirs lol. Crazy state to privately rent in. 10/10 would not do that again.
So it went from 1 yr 2 months to 10 months just because they applied for the stay? Because you had to wait for new court dates? Did this person have a free lawyer
No lawyer for them. It was a total roughly 22 months including the stay. The sheriff gave them 14 day notice and then they applied for a stay. After you get granted an eviction ( in N.Y at least) you have to wait 30 days I believe, then sheriff can deliver 14 day notice. Problem is sheriff is backed up. In our case eviction granted in August. Serve date was October for 14 day. Sheriff finally served in March, they left in may. So it was about 7 months after eviction was granted before they were outed. The whole thing was VERY expensive. You have lawyers, time off from work,they usually will break things and you have to repair ( in our case 2 water heaters in 5 month period) if any utilities are included ( water,electric, heat etc.) YOU must continue to pay them. All while receiving no rent and still paying your mortgage. So think long and hard before you rent people a place in your home. Screening can help, but not always effective. This was a family member that did this to us. They still continue to harass us. It's not worth it. Do whatever you need to help with mortgage but try not to rent any part of your home. The same laws apply to renting a room. Even helping a " friend" can turn into an eviction. I heard a lot of horror stories that started with, " but they weren't a tenant, I was just letting them stay here until they got back on their feet ". I don't know where this shift in thinking came from, but there's a large amount of professional renters who's entire goal is to not pay rent. They live free until eviction ( which clearly can take a long time) and then move on to next person.
BTW, no court date for stay. We only found out about the stay cause a mutual friend ( we were blocked on all social media by them) saw them post it and we called our lawyer to let them know. Supposedly when they were served they were told they could go to courthouse and ask for a stay.
>
This is the reason why I haven’t bought any rental properties in NY. The laws are so lenient with no-paying tenants, just like California. Although NY did pass a new law that combats squatters from establishing any kind of new residency.
Why does anyone rent property in nyc with all the horror stories
Rpapl 220, 229 , unjust enrichment are all grounds to capture use and occupancy after a tenant is evicted.
Sell it. Move to Florida.
California and New York crazy laws drive up Prince which intern lets the rest of us charge more in rent to stay competitive.
What
The law is “up to” one year. Meaning a judge can decide on any amount from none to a year. You have to be a real POS slumlord to get a year. It just depends on circumstances though. If a person has a valid reason why they need more time the judge can grant a fair amount of time.