Recourse for Breaking a lease

If your rent is significant the landlord will pursue you for it through the courts, your credit will be affected and there will be a public record of you being a problem tenant.

If your rent is not significant the landlord will probably chalk it up to the cost of doing business.

Bottom line: if your apartment is in a high-end, high-demand area and can easily be re-rented at a higher rent quickly the landlordd will move on. Else, you're screwed.

I am a landlord. He really has nothing against you. Stick with your security deposit counter. He must be new to the game...no one wants or wins in a prolonged battle between tenant/landlord. Either credit ends up ruined or your place ends up trashed. Best to end it nicely.

Are you able to find a tenant to take over? That's your best bet - use Craigslist. The landlord can't collect anything from you if there's another tenant paying the same rent (regardless of whether you or they find the other tenant). They can only collect the downtime in between.

Also, they can't unreasonably refuse a tenant you provide for them. If they do, the lease is considered broken (penalty free) in the eyes of the law. Be sure to follow up any phone conversations about this with a registered, certified letter, so you can prove it in court.

And to clarify: if the downtime in between is 1 month, and your security deposit is 1 month, that's all you owe. They can't keep your deposit on top of anything else, provided there's another tenant.

Thanks. The rent is $3250 a month (2-bedroom on 94th and 3rd). I attempted to get a tenant on Craigslist. Had a few bites, but the management Company insisted on annual income of 48X monthly rent, which I think turned some people away. I think this is why they are also having some difficulty renting the place and 4 other units that are vacant. The typically figure is 40X I believe. They need to renovate the place to rent it as they have been doing for other units so I honestly think they are looking for coverage until it's renovated, which I'm not willing to cover. I own so I'm not super concerned about a possible hit to my credit. Seems like it's worth risking a court battle with them if they insist on 2-months plus security (which is one-month rent).

two months plus security is ridiculous.

If the building on 94th and 3rd is the Related building (carnegie park), you are F**ked. They will take you for as much as they possibly can.

Remember that their view of "unreasonable" may very well be different from the city/state's view. At this point you might want to consult with a lawyer - do a little research online, and I think some lawyers volunteer free legal advice to tenants, if you know where to look. Point is, if you provide a tenant who the city/state thinks is "reasonable", but the landlord refuses, your lease just ended then and there.

I hope you kept documentation on the bites?

Your landlord must be like my landlord. He tried to raise rent in the middle of lease which ended up not working because I called his bluff. I tried to end the lease early and he wanted full 9 months plus security deposit AND additional cost that he would incur for getting a new tenant (coop fee, lawyer document fee, his travel from UK etc)

Found some good litigation law firm. They told me it would cost me 20k for retainer (but he did give me good advice and they were goal oriented unlike other lawyer who just said, 'just do as you are told'). What I did was that I said I am leaving and all I can do is security which was month and half. He said he will sue me so I said, great, call this law firm. I didn't have a retainer with them but mere mention of law firm got him scared. He backed out at last min and said to help find a new tenant since he lives in UK. And I said screw you and left. Oh and every thing was documented, including how good of a tenant I am and pictures of the place before and after.

And at band camp...

I was in a similar situation last year, with slightly lower rent ($2800), 4 months left on the lease with a big management company in NY.

The landlord insisted on 2 month penalty (I got to keep the security deposit tho) to let me out of the lease. After consulting with our lawyer, and based on our lease which was the "standard one", I quickly realized that I didn't have much of a leg to stand on. As you said, your only recourse is to try subletting the place but :
- that means you are still liable for the rent until the end of the lease
- as you mention the landlord cannot unreasonably deny your right to sublet the apartment. Our lawyer tho, who has about 500 years experience in these matters, told us we would essentially have to sue our landlord to force them to accept a subtenant.

Bottom line, I ended up concluding that this was not worth the risk and potential major headaches and decided to suck it up and pay the 2 month penalty. To me that was worth it.

You can decide to stop paying the rent and leave the apartment, but the landlord can easily sue you (and will if they are a management company and have deep enough pockets) for the remainder of the lease which is 10 months $32K. Is it worth the risk?

Don't sublet - there is also a lease assignment, which means the other guy is the new leasee for the remainder. You're completely off. Again, I'm not a lawyer, you should consult one, but my understanding was that once they unreasonably refuse, your lease has ended. They then have to take you to court to get money, and that's where a judge decides of the refusal was reasonable or not.

Hmmm, good luck with getting a lease reassigned: a landlord may withhold consent on this without cause.
And may have valid arguments to do so (they are the one who have to collect from the new tenant moving forward). Proving they unreasonably denied you to reassign the lease is going to be a lot harder.

Re: Refusal. It works the other way around. They refuse and you can then take them to court to try and prove the refusal was unreasonable. You can't proceed with the sublet and you have to keep on paying rent while suing them...

http://tenant.net/Tengroup/Metcounc/Mar96/sublet.html

It says "reasonably" is open to interpretation, but also says you (alone) can cancel the lease within 30 days of requesting the transfer if the refusal was unreasonable. It sounds to me like it becomes the landlord's responsibility to take you to court.

I mean, that's a pretty factual statement - I find it odd that you disagree (what's your agenda?). If someone stop paying rent for any reason, valid or not, the landlord's only recourse is to take them to court.

What's my agenda ? I am an evil mole planted by the man to undermine the rights of all renters.

... I don't have an agenda, I am merely pointing out that as much as we may all want to stick it to the man, it's probably wiser to suck it up and accept that you do not have the upper hand when you are breaking your lease midway through.

re: "reasonably". One of the first things you need to demonstrate when you sublet a place is your intent to return. How can you demonstrate that when you first contacted your landlord to break your lease and vacate the place?

There are 2 different concepts. I never mentioned sublet. I only mentioned lease reassignment. Both grant the lease holder the right to break the lease if the landlord unreasonably refuses to honor the sublet or assignment.

Well, jsey, what you fail to realize is that YOU signed a one year lease TWO MONTHS AGO obligating you to pay rent on this unit for one year. Under the circumstances, 3 months rent to get out is quite lenient, I would say. Legal document, signature, I gave my word - does this mean anything to you? Pay the man!

"your credit will be affected and there will be a public record of you being a problem tenant."

True. If they report it to the credit bureaus. If it's a private landlord, probably not. And you can always contest with the credit bureaus, saying that the record is unfair.

Here's the issue - legally, you are responsible for the rent during the entire course of the lease. If you break it, the landlord can sue you for the remainder.

HOWEVER, the landlord must make a good faith effort to rent the apartment after you break the lease. If he rents it and loses no money, he CANNOT sue you for breaking the lease: he has no loss. If he refuses to rent it he CANNOT sue you because you are not responsible for his self-inflicted injury. If he rents it at a rent less than you pay, he CAN sue you for the difference.

But only for the difference, which normally isn't worth his time.

Ask your lawyer. I've sued a landlord (who claimed my cats peed on the carpet which they didn't and tried to withhold my security deposit) and won. If the landlord knows he will incur a loss, he must make ALL reasonable efforts to mitigate that loss. If there is no loss, he has no claim. In fact, if he tries to withhold your security deposit and he re-rents the apartment immediately for more money than you pay, you can take him to small claims court and claim unjust enrichment.

I don't understand why You would think its OK to end a lease with 10 months remaining. I am a tenant who hopes one day to be an owner and I think you should stick to your contracts you sign. You would be up in arms claiming your rights under your lease if he tried to raise your rent after 2 months. I would try to work with the landlord to rent the apartment and show it as often as possible so it gets re-rented and whatever time that takes you should suck up and pay for.

tech_guy
2 days ago
ignore this person Remember that their view of "unreasonable" may very well be different from the city/state's view. At this point you might want to consult with a lawyer - do a little research online, and I think some lawyers volunteer free legal advice to tenants, if you know where to look. Point is, if you provide a tenant who the city/state thinks is "reasonable", but the landlord refuses, your lease just ended then and there.

Techguy is giving entirely wrong advice. Your lease specifically describes your obligations. It is in black and white. Unless you are a rent regulated tenant, the city and state have no care about your private contract other than to ensure that your landlord is abiding by the NYS Multiple Dwelling Law which is a law about safety and codes, etc.

Additionally, this statement that you can contact tenant lawyers for free is entirely untrue. Those guys work with the poor and with regulated tenants and where the city or state is landlord.

Not that you know who I am vs. a hole in the wall, and you shouldn't take my advice, but I really am disappointed that someone - techguy - is posting advice so definitively that you may take because it sounds credible, and then do so to your potential detriment.

I'll offer two other things

1 - I just clicked on the link provided by tech_guy. I'll just say that Sam Himmelstein was my attorney a number of years ago. That firm only represents tenants

2 - The following statement is in the list of instructions: "If your landlord rejects a proposed sublease, it is strongly recommended that you consult an attorney or contact your local Met Council branch for advice. "

The Met Council refers to the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, if that helps you to understand how this is irrelevant to you paying $3250 per month.

How did this get resolved?