NY Rent Relief

[cgr]

NY Rent Program and Unemployment:
However, unemployment insurance or other subsidies or entitlements that are received to cover loss of income for a particular month should be counted for that month regardless of the month in which it is received. If you have not yet received UI benefits or another subsidy or entitlement, you are not required to report them.

In other words you need to count it as income in the month that it is certified for, not in the month that it is received BUT if you didn't receive it yet you don't have to report it.

I've updated the excel calculator in my signature block to reflect this update.

[cgr]

NY rent relief program expected to reopen with eased eligibility requirements.

[AsherO]

NY rent relief program expected to reopen with eased eligibility requirements.

Thanks for the heads up, waiting for updates on this.

[whacked1]

https://hcr.ny.gov/news/nys-homes-and-community-renewal-announces-expansion-covid-rent-relief-program-through-february

Open again

[AsherO]

https://hcr.ny.gov/news/nys-homes-and-community-renewal-announces-expansion-covid-rent-relief-program-through-february

Open again

Thanks. Looking on their site it’s not clear which months they’ll be offering these benefits for and if approval during the second round covers for benefits for the months covered in the first round.

[cgr]

Thanks. Looking on their site it’s not clear which months they’ll be offering these benefits for and if approval during the second round covers for benefits for the months covered in the first round.

Detailed writeup on my site but in a nutshell:
Only criteria change is that applicants are no longer required to have been rent burdened (paying more than 30% of income towards rent) prior to March 1.

Otherwise all stays the same. Those who applied previously and were denied will have their application automatically reviewed again and need not reapply. Those who were approved are not eligible for more funds.

[cgr]

Check out this case:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16gNJCcaJS5IdiPZvaphMX1nJxhCJwx0C/view

A Manhattan Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of a restaurant's outstanding rent obligation.

The [restaurant tenant and guarantor] have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the tenant is not obligated to the defendant for rent for the months of March through August 2020, and it is not obligated to replenish the security deposit equal to the rent otherwise owed for those months, even if the lease, by its terms, authorized the defendant to draw down the deposit to cover rent.

The [restaurant tenant and guarantor] have established that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the COVID-19 epidemic, and the consequent state-mandated suspension of indoor dining at restaurants, constituted a sudden, unexpected, unfortunate set of circumstances and, hence, a “casualty” within the meaning of the lease that rendered the premises unusable for a period of time, and thus relieved the tenant of its obligation to pay rent.

[whacked1]

Check out this case:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16gNJCcaJS5IdiPZvaphMX1nJxhCJwx0C/view

A Manhattan Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of a restaurant's outstanding rent obligation.

Ruled in favor of the tenant's motion for security.... not rent obligations. Very interesting decision nonetheless, thanks for sharing

[cgr]

Ruled in favor of the tenant's motion for security.... not rent obligations. Very interesting decision nonetheless, thanks for sharing

Yep thanks for clarifying.

What I find particularly surprising (and scary for all commercial RE owners out there) is that the judge feels that the plaintiff "have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the tenant is not obligated to the defendant for rent for the months of March through August 2020" and that "have established that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the COVID-19 epidemic... constituted a sudden, unexpected, unfortunate set of circumstances... that rendered the premises unusable for a period of time, and thus relieved the tenant of its obligation to pay rent."

[whacked1]

Yep thanks for clarifying.

What I find particularly surprising (and scary for all commercial RE owners out there) is that the judge feels that the plaintiff "have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the tenant is not obligated to the defendant for rent for the months of March through August 2020" and that "have established that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the COVID-19 epidemic... constituted a sudden, unexpected, unfortunate set of circumstances... that rendered the premises unusable for a period of time, and thus relieved the tenant of its obligation to pay rent."

I would be interested in seeing this tenants lease. My standard (and typical nyc) forms dont have a casualty provision.

[cgr]

I would be interested in seeing this tenants lease. My standard (and typical nyc) forms dont have a casualty provision.

There's doesn't either. The case explains that it's undefined in the lease.

[whacked1]

There's doesn't either. The case explains that it's undefined in the lease.

Thats not how i'm reading the decision. Rather, undefined, meaning as the casualty provision is too vague, the executive order can be included in casualty. 

ETA: The judge quotes the casualty provision referenced. It is under fire article (9 in this lease)

[cgr]

Thats not how i'm reading the decision. Rather, undefined, meaning as the casualty provision is too vague, the executive order can be included in casualty. 

ETA: The judge quotes the casualty provision referenced. It is under fire article (9 in this lease)

Oh I see. Thanks for clarifying.