A 94-year-old man in a rent-stabilized apartment on 80th Street who has been battling his landlord for years was given an eviction notice in August and feared he was soon on his way out.
His landlord, Pine Management, is currently being investigated by the New York Attorney General’s Office, according to the Daily News. Pine Management was sued by a super who says they wanted him to snoop on rent-regulated tenants.
The tenant, Maxwell Levy, pays his rent on time, but had boxes in the hall, and the landlord has attempted multiple times to evict him, the News reported. He has lived in the building at 211 West 80th Street since the 1950’s and now pays $1,650 a month.
But last year, the court appointed a guardian to oversee his affairs, and a court-ordered psychiatrist who visited found a cluttered apartment but no issues of competency. The psychiatrist noted that Levy “seems and looks younger than stated age” and quoted him saying, “I think positively all the time.”
After a court observer found violations of the housing code in Levy’s apartment, the court told the landlord to fix the place and stop bothering Levy.
He has also submitted to a “heavy-duty cleaning” to toss the boxes, according to the News.
On Wednesday, Pix11 reported that the eviction had been called off.
The landlord says he never intended to evict Levy, who pays his rent on time.
They issued a statement saying the eviction notice was to get Levy to clean up his apartment.
Image via Google Streetview.
Some great news!
Having a hoarder as a neighbor is a real problem. Aside from any psychological issues, there can be an infestation and at the very least a fire hazard is present.
Funny, the Daily News had pics of his current Apartment and it looks neat. Previous Super had once told me that the apartment was a hazard, as it was impassable with boxes upon boxes. From what I remember, and this was over 3 years ago , , , attempts at having him discard/clean up his apartment then were futile. Guess legal action worked?
Some times it takes threats by legal action to light a fire under someone and or their family to put an end to such conditions.
Lived in a building were an elderly woman was not only a hoarder, but wasn’t keeping herself nor apartment clean. Garbage wasn’t being taken out, etc…
First came polite and quiet words, then more formal letters, finally legal action (eviction via holdover proceeding) based upon violation of lease (creating unsanitary and dangerous conditions).
While this woman had no children, a nephew was deputized by the family to get things sorted out. One day an small army of workers showed up and began carting out boxes upon boxes of stuff. College textbooks (Columbia 1940’s and 1950’s), a masters degree dissertation, tons of old clothes, jewelry, appliances… the lot. A home help aide was engaged to come during the day to help keep the woman and her apartment in order.
Whenever a holdover eviction proceeding is begun eviction will not take place if the issue can be “cured”; that is the tenant will stop doing whatever it is that bugs the LL enough to bring the case. The fact this person paid his rent on time was to his credit, but has nothing really to do with this case. Non-payment and holdover are two different housing court proceedings. Indeed you often see tenants with both types of cases going at once in housing court.
Housing court judges in NYC are loathe to evict anyone, much less an elderly man who pays his rent on time.
This guy had been living for decades in a SIX room apartment for $1,650 a month.
Does he really need all this space (aside to store all his clutter)? This isn’t exactly an efficient use of housing resources.
Is it any wonder we have housing affordability issues in the city?
You don’t take someone’s home out from under them, especially at that age. And, just where do you propose that he go??
In the 1950’s and for decades after, the neighborhood was definitely not posh and could be downright dangerous. He was there at those times. Now, especially that he is older, glad he can enjoy a safer environment. He has every right to stay in how many rooms he has!! More power to him!!
the last line of the News article that B.B. shared:
““I’m living on borrowed time,” he adds.”
Enjoy the Holidays!!!!!!!!!
First of all this ranting and raving about RS apartments must cease. It seems to be some sort of pet peeve of yours and is very unbecoming.
The gentleman in question is a WWII vet who moved into that apartment fifty years ago. Do you know what that part of the UWS looked like (or Manhattan for that matter) in the 1960’s.
Even now the building is basically made up of railroad apartments. Don’t get all caught up with the “Six Rooms” nonsense as the layouts are what they are. Even after renovation you aren’t talking about luxurious surroundings.
https://www.zumper.com/apartments-for-rent/8506548/1-bedroom-upper-west-side-new-york-ny
In fact building has had issues in past getting asking rents for renovated apartments. Which shows despite their “size” not everyone feels they are value for money.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/211-W-80th-St-APT-2C-New-York-NY-10024/2122293825_zpid/
Mr. Levy has a signed legally binding contract (lease). This isn’t Russia under Lenin or Stalin; we don’t take over peoples homes and or chuck them out to make “greater efficient use of space”…
Mr. Levy and his wife (deceased) raised three children in this apartment. He served his country, became an educator and gave back to his community/city. Leave the guy alone, and stop hating the fact he has something you do not.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/nyc-slumlord-evict-94-year-old-tenant-christmas-article-1.2917854
Sherman, the problem is that the Rent Stabilization system does not allow for someone who raised a family in a large apt. to downsize into a smaller, also affordable, apt. If there was a mechanism in place to do that, landlords would be able to move the rent-controlled and rent-stablized tenants to something smaller, which many of them would happily do as long as they were affordable, and free up those large apts to be renovated and rented out for zillions of dollars at market price. But landlords don’t want to do that – so you have many single people (widows, widowers, divorcees, etc), whose kids are gone, in large apts., who cannot afford to move. There’s a solution here that would benefit all parties; you just need the will and determination to work it out. As far as the cartons and hoarding, there was a situation in my building with a middle aged woman hoarding. She wouldn’t let the super or plumbers into her apt. (they couldn’t move around in it) to fix some pipes. She left stuff in the hall (complete fire hazard by the way). The Landlord had to take her to court. Literally the day of the hearing on eviction she agreed to move out her stuff. It is a serious problem in apt. buildings. Sometimes suing for eviction is the only recourse a Landlord has to get a tenant to comply. Not a great system.
Jealous because you don’t have the apartment.
He moved in at a time when the UWS wasn’t the place to live.
Stop #%R#W@ and deal with it!
Found the rent control tenant….
By the way, you’re welcome.
Argh. Sherman, do you not see how callous these sound?
Is there an age where you want the city to start kicking senior citizens out of their homes? If this is Mr Levy’s primary residence and the home where at age 94 he plans to stay for the rest of his life, are you suggesting the city could fix affordability by abrogating leases? Based on the age of the tenant??
Should the city designate a required maximum rentable square footage per person and apply it across the board? Or do you just suggest that on the elderly and 50+ year residents?
This guy seems well within his rights to stay under current laws, and I don’t begrudge him for defending those rights.
However, this situation does highlight the inefficiency of rent control. As most people age, they downsize their home as a result of decreased income and/or diminished need for space. That frees up larger apartments for families with kids. Under rent-control, people stay put, even if that means single man occupying a 3-bedroom apartment.
You’re right about that! I had a neighbor who lived in a huge UWS apartment; she was elderly and had the place from her parents and it had a huge living room, dining room,. kitchen, at least three bedrooms…and she could not move! I don’t know if the same rules as still in place.
I take your point. I know I won’t be keeping my family sized apartment when my kids are on their own, because I can’t afford it. I agree that is an inefficiency in the market, but I just don’t think I would start to overcome the inefficiency by going after individual people.
It’s not to sympathize with a 94yo who’s lived in his apartment since the Korean War, but yes, rent-control is a ridiculous system that doesn’t properly allocate our city’s scarce resources. For $1,650, this guy could get a decent studio apartment, even on the UWS, and free up this apartment for a family.
John, in what fantasy world do you live – that you think you can rent a nice studio on the UWS for $1650??? SHARES in apts cost $1650. Wake up.
Please tell me exactly where your claim of studios for this price exist Because it doesn’t!!
Those folks who live in multi-floor apartments, with sun rooms, dens, multiple guest rooms, media rooms, mud rooms, etc. could also move out and make room for others. I assume the difference in your mind is that they pay market rent.
Whether a situation is fair depends a lot on how you frame it. If you start today, without taking into account history, yes, it seems unfair that a landlord has to rent out an apartment at less than market rates. If you look further back and realize that he bought the building for a song because it was burdened by rent-controlled leases, it doesn’t seem nearly so unfair. If you recognize that he gets this apartment back when this gentleman dies, which is not likely to be more than 20 years from now, it seems less unfair still.
Capitalism and free markets depend on honoring your contracts. This guy has a contract.
Agreed. This guy shouldn’t have to go anywhere. Presumably the current landlord bought this building knowing full well the terms of the current leasees. Though, I suppose he didn’t bargain for the spry Mr. Levy living well into his 90s.
In any case, I think the system needs to honor current contracts, but usher out the rent-control system with maximum haste.
Is it just rental apartments that you believe should go to the highest bidder?
Is it also healthcare?
And clean water?
air?
Sherman, really? Are you really saying that he has to be in the smallest place that can contain him? And – assuming the boxes have been dealt with – that he needs to get rid of things so he can fit in that smaller space? Do you live in the smallest space available?
I have questions as to whether rent control/stabilization is the best way to get housing built and maintained, it no landlord who owns a building now acquired it without knowing what they were in for. If they don’t like it, they should sell. If you believe in the capitalist system, you have to accept that a deal is a deal, and the pricing of the building when they bought it reflected the existence of this deal.
Besides, the man is 94. Would it kill the landlord not to hasten his demise! Given all the above?
coveting the man’s home?
These stories always bring out a few silly individuals who whine about rent-control and rent stabilized apartments and how it’s ruining the the city (or all de Blasio’s fault!) meanwhile the Landlord is being sued and was found in violation of various housing codes. On one side, legal rentals based on current housing law..on the other illegal activity. Is it that difficult to know which side to be on? sheesh..
Believe it or not, it’s possible to believe that Mr. Levy is in the right here, that the landlord is in the wrong, and that rent-control is an awful system.
So often this this debate is framed as callous capitalists on one side vs the tenacious “little guy” on the other. We need to focus on protecting people’s rights, but also changing the system to accommodate more people who weren’t lucky enough to land a rent-controlled apartment in the 1950s.
I wasn’t framing the argument as “us vs them”. I was just making the not so insignificant distinction of legal vs illegal. Tenants who live in rent-regulated apartments are afforded the same legal protections as other tenants (in some cases even more so).Warehousing and tenant harrassment of legal, rent regulated units is well documented in the city.
The State legislature would have to abolish rent-control and rent-stabilization to “open the market” so to speak. There are currently approx. 26,000 RC apts and 1.03 million RS apts. with many tenants who are old and on fixed incomes.
Rent Control, a Federal government imposed emergency program imposed on building owners in 1943 is not a capitalist program.
Is it Government Regulation that makes it anti-capitalistic to you?
make that price INCREASES.
be honest
I mean, whatever you think about rent-control, the government dictating prices in the private market is pretty much as anti-capitalistic as you can get.
Here’s the thing with getting seniors out of their rent controlled apartments.. I try all the time. Many of my clients are trapped in walk up apartments they cannot leave. BUT – there is literally NO place in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx or Manhattan that has rent cheaper than where they are. They cannot go. Many want to – but cannot.
True, so very true!
The New York Times ran an excellent series earlier this year on the City’s “oldest” old; seniors over aged >80, and it was very sad that in many cases exactly what you just described was true.
At least three of the six or so elderly profiled lived in walk-up buildings. All had various health issues including one gentleman with diabetes (IIRC) who had mobility issues (amputation?).
Problem for all was that since their apartments were RC or RS anything that could be found in an elevator building or whatever would certainly cost more than what they had now. Many of these seniors lived alone, which meant they depended upon a patchwork of family (if they had), friends (ditto), neighbors and social services.
Saddest story IMHO was that of UWS resident John Sorensen, who ended up falling, laid there for two days until a neighbor found him; he died not long after being taken to hospital.
In an ideal world these seniors would be placed into “affordable” housing. But the backlog for such housing for seniors/the elderly is so vast a good number are and will die before their number is called.
Huh?
In October I ran a 10 mile race on the Grand Concourse in The Bronx. There are many beautiful art-deco buildings along the road.
I would say about half the buildings had big signs on them that said “apartments available for rent”.
There are plenty of inexpensive apartments in the city. The problem is people don’t want to live in these areas. They feel entitled to live in the nice parts of Manhattan or the trendy parts of Brooklyn – regardless of whether or not they can afford or are willing to pay the price of these apartments.
He has a lease, and as a result, he actually is entitled.
“They feel entitled to live in the nice parts of Manhattan or the trendy parts of Brooklyn – regardless of whether or not they can afford or are willing to pay the price of these apartments.” -Sherman
Mr Levy CAN afford and IS willing to pay the price of this aparatment.
why so bitter?
In this case, he could easily rent a studio on the UWS for $1,650. I bet his landlord would even be willing to pay his rent in full for the rest of his life if he was willing to move. Not that he wants to or should. He’s got a sweet deal. Might as well milk it.
“He’s got a sweet deal. Might as well milk it.”
What he has is his home of 60 years, that he sighned a Lease with a Landlord, that has ceilings on annual (or bi-annual) increases.
sorry that bothers you so much
Well, it bothers me that some people have insanely beneficial lease deals that others don’t have access to, and that that drives up apartment pricing for everyone else.
Again, I don’t blame this guy. I blame the market manipulating bureaucrats.
Let the Market rule.
Let the Landlords Rule!
Hey John, I just checked Streeteasy. There are 18 apts on UWS priced under $1750. Four are priced at 1650 or less. So easy to find a place on UWS for $1650? I think not. Here is Streeteasy link https://streeteasy.com/for-rent/uws/price:-1750
Huh? You just showed me 18 apartments under $1,750. And it took all of 30 seconds to find them. I think you just proved my point.
Reading these comments saddened me. People with lots of money have moved here and their views are difficult for me to comprehend. No one should expect a man of that age to relocate for any reason. Let him peacefully live out his years in the home he knows and finds comfortable. Rent control existed, and people who are not wealthy got to live in their homes for their whole lives. It’s no one’s business. If you can’t find a large enough apartment, try a different neighborhood. The disdain for the elderly on this page is appalling. We’re not all as entitled as the next generation.
i thank you too, LSilver212. I was appalled by the tone of the comments.
how come no one complains about all the pied-a-terres and second homes in the neighborhhod that lie vacant most of the year? answer: because rich people own them. so it’s ok.
this guy is paying his rent. the landlord is probably making a good profit on his rental unit, unless the building is way over-mortgaged. the landlord tried to illegally evict him, and this fellow at an advanced age had the wits to defeat the greedy landlord.
the guy’s my hero.
wow, that’s really an interesting take on it. I don’t think most Americans, and most people in general share those sentiments.
Sounds like some kind of socialist system you crave. Here successful people can spend their money on whatever they please. Sorry that you are not into freedom.
Also, you don’t see the issue here. When YOU are not paying the check at the restaurant it is considered rude to order the most expensive thing on the menu….and certainly not three or four entrees that you can’t even eat….
UWS_lifer, i’m not sure i understand the point you are making. guy was paying his rent.
it seems like you are implying that this guy is “rude” for wanting to continue to live in the apartment he has lived in for 50 years. this point of view would strike me as “unusual.”
also, i would be interested in knowing all the various types of government support — including tax credits and tax deductions — his greedy landlord is getting. when the rich start turning down all of these subsidies (see Donald trump’s billion dollar 20 year deduction), then we can start talking about a “free market.”
if it’s a socialist idea that this senior citizen deserves basic protection, then call me a socialist.
oh, one more thing… i love the way you refer to “successful people”. you said:
“Here successful people can spend their money on whatever they please. Sorry that you are not into freedom.”
I consider this man “successful.” i object that you have to be rich to be considered “successful.” We have to work to change this sort of elitist language.
And people CAN’T spend their money on “whatever they please.” even rich people have to abide by zoning laws, housing laws, employment laws, environmental laws, and so on.
stevieboy,
It is not a straightforward metaphor.
Writing that “Also, you don’t see the issue here. When YOU are not paying the check at the restaurant it is considered rude to order the most expensive thing on the menu….and certainly not three or four entrees that you can’t even eat….” has no relationship to the article.
Perhaps your resentment has blinded you to that.
And once again it sails right over his head….
Blinders anyone?
Even I got it, it’s not a difficult metaphor. Try to keep up. Use what you can pay for, is that easier for you.
There is no freedom in greed, give me a break and stop it already.
Thank you, lsilver212. I join your comment, happily.
Let the poor man live in peace. Stop coveting his home.
Really? I didn’t read a single comment arguing this guy should be evicted. Just a couple laments about the inefficiency of rent-control in general (of which this is a case-in-point).
see Thread #4 – Sherman’s Comment (“Does he really need all this space [aside to store all his clutter]? This isn’t exactly an efficient use of housing resources”).
and JOHN’s Comment (“For $1,650, this guy could get a decent studio apartment, even on the UWS, and free up this apartment for a family.”).
I never said he should be evicted you putz.
I simply said it was an inefficient use of housing resources to give someone a giant apartment at a dirt cheap rent only so he could fill it up with drek.
i guess your use of “putz” and “drek” indicate that you celebrate Hanukkah.
As a little cross-cultural experience I recommend you read “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens, 1843.
I’ll get you started:
Page 1
““Bah!” said Scrooge, “Humbug!””
Did either call for eviction? Nope. Both just pointing out that rent control/stabilization leads to inefficient outcomes (not to mention a lot of landlord/tenant conflicts like this).
John,
But your focus is on the inefficiency in today’s market.
There is also the efficient effect during the years 1943 to present. Housing became a stable part of people’s lives. Those people built the NYC that we currently live in.
Let’s thank them, not begrudge them.
“The landlord says he never intended to evict Levy, who pays his rent on time.
They issued a statement saying the eviction notice was to get Levy to clean up his apartment.”
Q: How can you tell if a landlord is lying?
A: His lips are moving.
This can be totally true.
Landlords bring holdover cases all the time just as with nonpayment proceedings to cover their behinds. If this tenant had be spoken to/warned to clean up his apartment and or stop blocking hall with his stuff, after a period of non-compliance a property owner has to do something to protect himself.
Suppose there was a fire in this building and FDNY or someone else got hurt because of this tenant’s clutter? That and or the mess is what sparked the blaze in first place.
This is exactly what just happened rather recently:
https://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2016/07/niosh-bklyn-high-rise-lodd-report.html
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/high-rise-fire-killed-firefighter-caused-pinched-cord-article-1.1856750
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/firefighters-death-highlights-a-hazard-hoarders-junk/
Hoarding is bad enough when it involves a private home; but in dense multifamily housing such as what we have in NYC, the danger is amplified.
For the record it is illegal in NYC to block hallways in apartment buildings. If someone complains to the City, and the FDNY responds/verifies the problem property owner will be issued a summons/fined.
How surprisingly heartening to read these comments and hear that most people who have written here have a nice blend of intelligence and compassion and understand the situation from a healthy perspective. I’m glad for this man that he doesn’t need to be traumatized (and yes, for those who will protest, it is traumatic for someone 94 years old who has lived in his home for so many years to be forced out into a strange place) and can live out the few years he will have left in peace and the comfort of not being displaced. I wish all happy holidays and a new year filled with peace and hope for all.
Christmas is here!
I love the Scrooge story. Inspiring to many.
Helen Rosenthal holds regular meetings in support of residents of Pine Management buildings–particularly in regard to regulated tenants. Pine Management who is also Epic Realty is under governmental scrutiny. Expected that after the last rally harassment would cool down. Quite the contrary.
Yes Dorian John et al Rent Stabilization and Rent Control are regulated by NYS laws.Also SCRIE.They are not exacyly the same.The 94 year old was said to be rent stabilized not rent controlled.Mayor De Blasio is not tesponsible for NYS laws except to uphold them.
Happy Holidays, Sherman! I’m sure you’re a wonderful person and not as grumpy as you sound–and your salty comments only serve to compel people to stand up for all your put down:)
To use your logic: Sherman takes up too much space in the comments, hoards negativity and releases it here. Can we evict him? Limit him to 240 characters? One post per week?