E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSView more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.
A New York woman has filed a federal discrimination suit against her former landlord, alleging she has been evicted from her apartment because of her cancer.
Heatheran Kristopher said she spent two years battling colon and ovarian cancer. When her rent went into arrears, her landlord at the time worked with her.
“They made a payment plan for me,” she said. Kristopher paid back everything she owed and continued to pay rent.
But things changed when the apartment building on East 81st Street on Manhattan's Upper East Side was sold, she said. The new landlord refused to honor the lease agreement she had worked out with the previous owner and raised her rent by $750 a month up to almost $3,000, shortened the lease time and demanded additional security money totaling thousands of dollars.
“They worried if my cancer came back, I wouldn’t be in a position to pay my rent,” according to Kristopher.
Kristopher rejected the deal but said she continued to pay as she had and filed a discrimination complaint with the New York Division of Human Rights. It determined there was probable cause, but Kristopher decided against pursuing that case at that time.
But things changed dramatically for her last week. An eviction notice was put on her door, and on Monday, city marshals arrived to change the locks. With the help of neighbors and family, Kristopher has moved her belongings into storage and is living temporarily with a friend.
Her complaint before the U.S. Southern District Court alleges she was discriminated against solely on the basis of her disability, her cancer.
George Shea of Shea Communications, a spokesman for the landlord, Stone Street Properties, said her lease had expired and she was living in the building without one. In an emailed statement to us, Shea said, “Management was highly sensitive to the tenant’s illness and made repeated efforts to settle this case, including offering a one-year lease extension with no rent increase."
Shea described the claim of discrimination as "untrue, unfair and deeply unfortunate."
Kristopher is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and in the meantime, she will look for new lodging.
“I’m not going to let this break me,” she said.
Leave a Comment:
I feel for her, but her lease agreement expired when the building was sold. I don't think she has a case.
Without specifics, I'll just say that's not how leases work, and she totally has a case.
First off there is a thing call a month to month lease that does not require a contract the landlord could have continued with and if she has the notice of her rent going up to almost $3000.00 from $750.00, then she has a case and tack on the fact that the previous landlord set arrangements for her to catch up on the rent which she did and the fact that the new landlord was unwilling to do that or even continue her with a month to month, well all of that evidence is damning to the new landlord. So what it boils down to is the new landlord may very well be @#^$#*& and before it is all over the woman may end up being the new owner of the complex!
If a new company buys another company, the contract does not have to be honored. The same way in this case, it's sad, but the new owner does not have to honor an existing lease between the renter and the precious owner. The new owner has to provide a 30 day notice of changes.
Spirit- The rent increased by $750 making the total $3,000. It did not increase $2,250. It would be interesting to know what rent for other units in the building go for. Also, were the additional security deposits required of just this lady or of everyone?
She doesn't have a case. New owners, leases can be voided. The original lease was between her and the former owners. If you don't like being at the short end of a lease, then you buy or own your property. That is the way it works. If ownership didn't have perks like avoiding sudden changes in prices, leases non-renewals, etc, everyone would just lease or rent.
doesn't a buyer assume the contractual obligations associated with the purchase?
They CAN assume the contract IF THEY WANT, but it is NOT written in law that they HAVE to assume the contract.
It is up to the new owners to honour the lease terms (or not). Most do honour the terms. Because a new landlord ups the payments, shortens the lease period, increases the security deposits is not an indication that the landlords were discriminating against her - disease or otherwise. Increases are not based on a persons ability to pay or their medical conditions. They are based on vacancy rates, property values, taxes, maintenance/repair costs, utilities, etc.
She admitted that she thought she deserved to pay the same amount and refused to sign a lease agreement. That puts you on a month-to-month plan which costs more - like renting a hotel room for a night, a week, or a month.
When she got booted out she got what she deserved. She could have paid the increases or found a new residence. Did she really think that there would neveer be a rent increase.
Before we are all up in arms, let us see what details play out with the trial.
@VA Commuter, that is true. But the adjustment to the rent seems a bit ridiculous, especially with the new security deposits. It'll be interesting to see if the management did this to all tenants, and see who had to move because of it.
Typical NBC story with very few details, lots of drama.
A landlord is not required to operate on a month-to-month basis for rent. That's what flop-houses are for.
Unless she can prove that she was targeted differently than other tenants, I'd say say she has a weak case. But, this being NYC, all bets are suspect - they have a pretty socialistic rent control board.
You go Girl! Been there! pp can be indescribable cads when you have cancer..they either avoid the reality of it or treat you like they can catch it...then there are those angels that take you by surprise! You go!
VA Commuter I don't know where you think you learned law but unless she signed off on an agreement that allows the new owner to nullify standing leases, aka Promissory Estoppel, the contract between tenant and prior owner stands
According to the landlord statement in the article - her previous lease had EXPIRED and she was living there without one. And they offered her a one year lease with NO RENTAL increase and SHE refused.
Promissory estoppel may exist between the tenant and the prior landlord. The lease contract is voided upon the sale of the property. One is not expected to honour the promises of another without the promises being disclosed and the new owner accepting those promises as a condition of sale/purchase. If the buyer did not specifically agree to each/any/all of the existing lease agreements the buyer is not obligated to honour those agreements.
Getting kicked out of new york would be a good thing.
I think this is horrible what humans are doing to others all these stories and foreclosure evictions are shamful America What have we become!!!!
@standup people,
So you own rental property? Maybe you can let her move (on your dime) to your apartment? Sorry for you if someone told you a fairy tale about how a business is run. Sorry for everyone around you that listened to you. Businesses have to make money to stay solvent. Apartments and landlords can't just let people stay forever at the same rates, esp. when the government mandates extra spending (Obamacare for starters), that wasn't in the original owner's budget for employees or agreements for tenants. It is a harsh world out there in reality. I worry about my ability to pay my bills every day lately, since the future holds no guarantees. That is what makes life as we know it in this day and age. You don't have to like it, btw.
One thing you must remember is when you rent it isn't your property, except for what you own (personal items, furniture and appliances you purchased for example), unless you are in default, then what you have as owned items may be considered for collateral. Tenants do have some rights that vary from state to state, and I hope that the courts settle this particular issue properly. I have dealt with rent hikes, and without proving someone did wrong, you could instead use your efforts (and in most cases, your current landlord will work with you) in finding another place. Me never personally renting in NYC, I can't say how they operate (legally or otherwise), just saying what is considered the norm. It is best practice to keep a copy of all binding contracts and other "legal" documents in such situations, which if she can't produce when the courts ask, she may very well be SOL.
$3,000.00 a month for rent! Somebody needs to get their head examined, buy a house or move away from the city, you get a lot more for your hard earned money! Matter of fact, everybody who pays that much in rent should move away from the city and put these crook landlords out of business!
If they raised her rent that significantly, she was likely paying well below market value already. The prior owner was kind enough not to raise her rent to the same level as new or more recent tenants but the new owner has no such restriction.
The additional security means that she defaulted on a payment or bounced a check with them. According to her own words, she fell behind on her rent with the prior owners. Why should the new owners carry her? They have mortgage payments to make and if she cannot pay the rent they are asking, she needs to find an apartment she can afford. If she has been ill for more than two years, this is not a surprising situation to her. I understand her situation. I am on disability myself. I live in a little apartment while I rent out my nice house because I can't afford to live in it on disability.
I had a landlord of a 3 family house ingore a broken water heater / flooded basement situation for over 4 days. Each tennant, myself included, sought legal advice and learned that her neglect constituted a breach of our respective leases. Upon finally repairing the damage to the apartment house, all 3 of us, unbeknown to eachother, moved out at the same time at the end of the month. All ofther rental income evaporated in an afternoon. I found out later that, since every nickel was motgaged into that place, she later sold it at a loss.