2.5 months left in lease, LL refusing to let me sublet?

[jcoltrane]

Originally Posted by Cida

I'm not so sure that it's as clear as that. First, sublets are constantly done where the original tenant has no intention of coming back.

More importantly, isn't there something in either state or city law that says the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse to sublet? Moccawaii, you need to check with someone oficial, not just here.

That said, for two months, you may just have to take the hit. I can see where the LL may just not want to be bothered to do you a favor with the extra paperwork.

Not so sure?

People sublet "constantly", right! Illegally, w/o the consent of the LL!

What you are thinking is in regard to rent stabilized apartments, which are governed by the rent laws, which apply specifically to controlled and stabilized apartments.

The OP does not state specifically regarding his apartment, but it would appear his is a non controlled/stabilized apartment. In which case, the Lease Agreement governs what is and isn't allowed and under what conditions.

[jcoltrane]

Originally Posted by moccawaii

Thanks guys. I just wanted outside opinions from laypeople before going to someone more official who costs money.

For WHAT purpose or benefit is there in confering with people who do not know what they are talking about? Particularly, when you do not yourself? That's like the Tin Man asking the Scarecrow about a brain!

*****

Anywayyy, you are wholly misreading the provision you quoted. The provision pertains to "Assignment" NOT subletting.

Subletting is as the LL's letter advised. The lease remains in the Primary Tenants name, but for a time, a Subleasee will be allowed to occupy the premmise under a Sublease between the Primary Tenant and the Sublessor. All provisions and obligations of the Lease remain in effect. The LL's obligation is ONLY to approve or disapprove the sublet applicant. That is all. The quoted provision does not speak to this.

Also, as the letter states, subletting is defined by a Tenant subleasing for a period ot time within the lease period, then returning and occupying the premises and CONTINUING the Lease.

Obviously, the OP has NO intention of "continuing" the lease; and the letter is directly in this regard.

The provision pertains, just as it states, to "Assignment" of the Lease.

For example, if the Tenant did not wish to fulfill the Lease term (in other words break the lease), and wished to vacate, but did not wish to continue to be obligated for the remainder of the Lease payments (rent), then with the LL's permission the Tenant could procure a 'Replacement Tenant" (upon the LL's approval) to 'take over' (in proper terms "Assign") the Lease.

The provision states that the LL can "unconditionally" refuse to Assign the Lease, but doing so requires the LL to release the Tenant from the Lease obligation upon the Tenant's request and 30 Days notice.

If the LL conditionally refuses, then the Tenant will continue to be obligated to complete the Lease term.

Now, that was an experienced analysis, and far different than that of the "lay" people.

Again, I must ask, WHAT benefit is there in the opinions of "lay" people? People, who, on the whole, have no greater knowledge nor experience than yourself!

I just don't get it.

*****

I hope you can see that a few of the Thread responses are from those who have absolutely NO idea; and, one is from an individual who simply 'makes sht up from whole cloth'!!! Not to mention that for some there is a bit of a reading deficiency.

[jcoltrane]

Originally Posted by Kefir King

The law says pretty clearly that you CAN sublet with the owner's permission or be freed of the lease.

What law would that be, which pertains to the OP?

The only question is timing. Since you have ALREADY received notice that the landlord will not accept a tenant,

The LL gave no such notice WHATSOEVER!

[Alert! Reading deficiency!]

In very simple words, the LL's letter states that the *conditions* of the OP's proposal did not meet that of a Sublet, since the OP w/n be "returning" [to continue the lease], which is a condition of subletting.

In the letter, there is NO statement regarding whether the LL will or will not "accept" a subtenant.

[It is important to be capable of reading and discerning written English. Most especially with regard to legal matters.]

...it seem reasonable to assume that you might consider your tenancy ended and the lease broken by the landlord and you can move out today.

"Lay" advice???

I think this would stand up in court if they pursue the matter...which they will not.

He *thinks* it'll "stand up"; and *knows* the LL "will not".

Below is his conclusionary basis:

Basically their argument can only be "we withheld the right to sublet becasue we FELT like it." That is not a cogent argument.

No argument! The LL's COMPLAINT w/b that the Tenant owes 2.5 months rent. Nothing more nothing less.

Court: Counselor King, what is your Answer on behalf of the Tenant? Did the Tenant vacate (upon your advice) with 2.5 months remaining of the Lease term?

Counselor King: Yes.

Court: Has your client, the Tenant, paid the aforementioned rent?

Counselor King: No.

Court: Counselor King, I read the mumbo jumbo, in your Answer, about refusal to sublet, blah, blah. Counselor, in the event of a sublet, in place, would not the Tenant continue to be obligated to pay the rent and fulfill the lease term?

Counselor King: Yes, but....

Court: Counselor King, conversely, there being No sublet in place, is not the Tenant obligated to pay the rent and fulfill the lease term?

Counselor King: Again, yes, but....

Court: Counselor King, are you asserting that the alleged "refusal to sublet" renders the Lease and its terms 'Null and Void'??? How is this possible Counselor?!

Court: Counselor King, under what law?? What legal theory?? What Precedent?? Have you come to this 'Whole Cloth' conclusion???

["Whole Cloth" is a legal term, implying, 'made up', fabricated, the result of some hallucinogenic episode....]

[Judge, red faced, hopping out of his seat]

Court: Counselor! Counselor! Answer the questions Counselor!!

Counselor King: Ahhhh, welllll your Honor, I am not an attorny, have never been trained as a legal professional, have absolutely no experience nor knowledge of the law whatsoever.

Sooo, ahhh, can you gimme a break, I'm trying to impress my client, who, as it happens, knows less than me about any of this! Doesn't that qualify me for something??

[Judge, eye poping, vein bulging]

Court: CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT! Balif! Take him away....

[Except for that last little bit, VERY real scenario! Including the Judge's annotated physical reactions]

****

So ultimately crescent is correct:

Yes, perhaps, in some world void of gravity, but not here on Earth, and certainly not in the City of New York.

Of course then there will be the inevitable battle over the security deposit...another story.
(P.S. In the ulikely event you haven't paid for September, don't...let them take that from the security deposit, which they are fully within their rights to do so. But at least that would be less you have to wrest back from them.)

Just more utter non-sense!

[moccawaii]

Hah, you guys are hilarious.

I decided to let a friend move into the apartment on the day I move out. They're going to pay for the last 2 months of the lease upfront before they move in. I guess it's nice that I get to help someone out AND break even.