The Mitchell Lama housing bill was initially created in 1955 and is no longer active. Mitchell-Lama Housing Explained Mitchell-Lama Developments History Mitchell-Lama Apartments Pricing Mitchell-Lama Apartment Qualification Requirements Applying for a Mitchell-Lama Apartment Mitchell-Lama Apartment Search Tips Mitchell-Lama Waiting List Lawsuits Mitchell-Lama Apartments Bottom Line hash-mark Mitchell-Lama Housing Explained The apartments under the Mitchell-Lama program includes cooperative apartments ("co-ops") and rentals. Named after New York State Senator, MacNeil Mitchell, and Assemblyman Alfred Lama, Mitchell Lama is a housing program designed to create and maintain affordable housing for middle-income individuals in New York. Currently, about 45,000 apartments in New York City are subject to Mitchell-Lama regulation. Similarly, the fifth article of the occupancy agreement addresses attorneys' fees and other potential costs which petitioner may incur and provides that said sums "shall be deemed to be additional carrying charges hereunder.Explore everything there is to know about Mitchell-Lama Housing. The fourth article, subparagraph 17, of the occupancy agreement provides that respondent "agrees to pay surcharge rents in accordance with the schedule or schedules of surcharge rents approved by the Commissioner, which surcharges will be deemed to be additional carrying charges due hereunder." in equal monthly installments." The agreement further provides that payments are due on the first of the month and "shall be deemed to be payments on account of the Member's annual obligation, which is hereby defined to be the Member's proportionate share of the operating costs of the Cooperative." The occupancy agreement for the subject premises provides in the second article that respondent agrees to pay an "annual carrying charge. In addition to the applicable regulations. The tenancies at Riverbay Corporation are governed by occupancy agreements The report additionally notes that there is a shortage of available Mitchell-Lama apartments and that because waiting lists are typically long, slow moving or completely closed, it may be several years before an eligible individual obtains housing ( id. On April 7, 2010, petitioner moved to restore the case to the calendar, alleging respondent had failed to pay or otherwise more than 50 percent, or when residents fail to submit income affidavits, residents are charged the maximum surcharge but are allowed to remain in their subsidized apartments." (State of New York Office of the Inspector General, Kristine Hamann, An In-Depth Review of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal's Oversight of the Mitchell-Lama Program, at 48, citing Private Housing Finance Law § 31 9 NYCRR 1727-2.2 1727-2.6 1727-5.3. As to the surcharges sued for, the stipulation provided "(i)n addition Resp agrees to provide landlord w/a certified copy of 2006 Tax Transcript by 3/15/10 regarding LL's claim for add 4,360.25If not LL may restore case to court on notice to resp seeking judgment." Respondent acknowledged owing $4,124.71 in arrears and agreed to pay said sum within one week. On February 5, 2010, the first court date, the parties entered into a stipulation settling the matter. Respondent filed an answer on Januasserting a general denial. The petition and notice of petition are dated January 8, 2010. Only $777.41, the rent for November 2009, out of the $5,538.03 sued for was for basic monthly carrying charges. Of that sum the demand sought $4,360.25 for a prior surcharge, $79.13 for a surcharge, $66.24 for parking charges, and $255 for legal, late and administrative fees. The demand sought arrears of $5,538.03 alleged due through November 2009. This nonpayment proceeding was commenced by service of a rent demand dated November 30, 2009. As the two proceedings contain this common issue, the pending motions are consolidated for disposition herein. In both cases the issue as to whether surcharges constitute rent and are properly sought in a proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL 711 (2) arose during the course of the proceeding. These summary nonpayment proceedings were commenced by Riverbay Corporation (petitioner).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |