Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in New York

Re: Lease

Once you moved in, and the landlord accepted rent, a tenancy was created. If the landlord had tried to lock you out, on the grounds that you were not a tenant because you had not signed a lease, you would most likely argue, and properly so, that you were a tenant because the you were living there, had paid rent and the landlord was aware of your presence. Unfortunately in this case, the circumstances are the same but it doesn't work in your favor. I don't know the specifics of your claim or the validity of your claim, but to argue that there was no tenancy because you never signed a lease agreement is not going to be a successful argument under these circumstances.

Should you like to discuss this or any other legal matter, you can e-mail me for more information about low cost face-to-face, on-line, or a telephone consultation with a lawyer in our office.

Re: Lease

This is an interesting case which illustrates the silliness of legal analysis.

Let me try to make it a little bit more accessible to you with this analysis.

1. When you moved into the apartment with your friend, the terms of your staying there were controlled by the lease. The lease established what the rules were for you to live there (pay rent, etc).

2. You are a tenant of your friend and a 'subtenant' or 'sublessor' of the apartment. The apartment is owned by the landlord.

3. You are nothing to the landlord. He has no legal relationship to you. His duty is to your friend and yours is to your friend and your friend has duties to you and to the landlord.

The landlord cannot sue you directly. In this case, he must serve your friend to gain jurisdiction in any legal theory over you and, even then, he might not have any recourse against you.

4. There may be some equity (non-legal analysis) issues whereby you are being held responsible for your own actions. If the landlord can show that you broke something, then he can hold you responsible. But he must show that you personally did it.

5. The other respondent to your question is taking a different tack. he is suggesting that you may have paid the landlord directly or paid with a check or money order from you, or otherwise you interacted with the landlord directly such that he 'accepted' you as a tenant. Your question does not indicate any facts that support this theory. It may be true, but, as you asked the question, there are no facts to support that argument.

Hope this is helpful. The lack of adequate service on your friend may be a very good way to appeal this case.

If you tell me what the landlord wants from you, then I could better answer the question.