AIR B&B in NYC..a Cautionary Tale from NYTimes
Dec 8th, 2012, 12:41 PM
#62
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for convenience, these are the links:
http://www.fodors.com/community/unit...nt-rentals.cfm
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/download...hapter_225.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/ny...-new-york.html
As the NYT article explains:
The minimum allowable rental period for an apartment, Ms. FitzGibbon explained, depends not on the building’s height or size, but on a set of rules based on the type of unit — Class A or Class B — that was originally listed in the building plan. Most regular apartments are Class A; Class B includes single-room occupancy buildings and some other types. In rare cases, a building might have both Class A and Class B apartments.
http://www.fodors.com/community/unit...nt-rentals.cfm
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/download...hapter_225.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/ny...-new-york.html
As the NYT article explains:
The minimum allowable rental period for an apartment, Ms. FitzGibbon explained, depends not on the building’s height or size, but on a set of rules based on the type of unit — Class A or Class B — that was originally listed in the building plan. Most regular apartments are Class A; Class B includes single-room occupancy buildings and some other types. In rare cases, a building might have both Class A and Class B apartments.
Dec 8th, 2012, 12:46 PM
#63
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excerpt from the NYC.gov link below. It's pretty clear, no?
A class A multiple dwelling shall only be used for permanent residence purposes. For the purposes of this subparagraph, "permanent residence purposes" shall consist of occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for thirty consecutive days or more, and a natural person or family so occupying a dwelling unit shall be referred to herein as the permanent occupants of such dwelling unit.
The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:
(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.
A class A multiple dwelling shall only be used for permanent residence purposes. For the purposes of this subparagraph, "permanent residence purposes" shall consist of occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for thirty consecutive days or more, and a natural person or family so occupying a dwelling unit shall be referred to herein as the permanent occupants of such dwelling unit.
The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:
(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.
Dec 8th, 2012, 03:16 PM
#64
I know I should stop posting about this, but just wanted to add that it is entirely possible that in our case, the owner of the studio apartment owned the whole building. It was three levels and had six apartments I think.
Dec 8th, 2012, 04:50 PM
#67
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is clear, no? Doesn't say "family or perhaps very close friends"?
The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:
(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.
The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:
(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.
Dec 9th, 2012, 02:31 AM
#70
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said I was out of this discussion, but fascinating new information has been added by 111op.
1. It allows for an old fashioned B&B in which you rented a room in someone's home. Like Sasssafras, I enjoyed these very much, including one in Bath!
2. On rentals when the owner is not present, I stand corrected: you _can_ let people stay in your apartment when you are "temporarily absent" but you can't get paid for it!!!
It does rather take the incentive out of renting your place through AirBnB, doesn't it, though it looks good for the renters!
What if you gave the absentee landlord a check before you moved in, then stopped payment? Could he enforce your failure to pay when payment is illegal under the law? Of course, he could send around a couple of guys with baseball bats.
All promising, but of course there are still those pesky coop and condo regulations, but they are a minor detail.
1. It allows for an old fashioned B&B in which you rented a room in someone's home. Like Sasssafras, I enjoyed these very much, including one in Bath!
2. On rentals when the owner is not present, I stand corrected: you _can_ let people stay in your apartment when you are "temporarily absent" but you can't get paid for it!!!
It does rather take the incentive out of renting your place through AirBnB, doesn't it, though it looks good for the renters!
What if you gave the absentee landlord a check before you moved in, then stopped payment? Could he enforce your failure to pay when payment is illegal under the law? Of course, he could send around a couple of guys with baseball bats.
All promising, but of course there are still those pesky coop and condo regulations, but they are a minor detail.
Dec 9th, 2012, 05:39 AM
#72
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - it doesn't say you can let "people" say. It says you can let "natural persons" stay in your apartment. That would seem, by any sensible definition, not to include random strangers - but to allow family or close friends (about whom the tenant would presumably know a lot) to stay.
And no, since the rental would be illegal - there is no way any court would enforce payment. This would be like enforcing payment for a drug buy - no one is going to do it.
And condo/co-op rules are not pesky details. They can result in eviction of a tenant who refuses to obey the rules. And neighbors finding non-tenants in the building can have them removed as trespassers.
And no, since the rental would be illegal - there is no way any court would enforce payment. This would be like enforcing payment for a drug buy - no one is going to do it.
And condo/co-op rules are not pesky details. They can result in eviction of a tenant who refuses to obey the rules. And neighbors finding non-tenants in the building can have them removed as trespassers.
Dec 9th, 2012, 06:44 AM
#73
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 23,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to nitpick here, are you saying that if a renter brings home someone he or she met at a bar, or while foraging for mushrooms, and lets them stay in the apartment overnight, they are flouting coop rules or NYC law? What is the line between random strangers and close friends, as it applies to allowing overnight or multi-day non-paying guests?
Dec 9th, 2012, 07:17 AM
#75
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly -- which is why I think the law is actually pretty clearly worded (at least to me, who is a not a lawyer) so that it can actually be applied to more specific situations. Of course there's always be room for interpretation.
Dec 9th, 2012, 07:46 AM
#77
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to act like nytraveler and nelsonian and come back again, since this debate wouldn't go away. 
111op, thanks for the links to the actual law. There's a 2011 amendment to the 2010 ordinance, which I didn't read through, but it doesn't change the wording in that relevant paragraph that 111op cited.
That said, I usually enjoy nytraveler's posts, so don't mean to pick on her especially in her spirited defense of not allowing airbnb renters into NYC.
nytraveler: No - it doesn't say you can let "people" say. It says you can let "natural persons" stay in your apartment. That would seem, by any sensible definition, not to include random strangers - but to allow family or close friends (about whom the tenant would presumably know a lot) to stay. [bolding mine]
Which, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion that airbnb renters, like myself, are "unnatural persons". But only in New York presumably we're "natural persons" elsewhere.
And no, since the rental would be illegal - there is no way any court would enforce payment. This would be like enforcing payment for a drug buy - no one is going to do it.
The non-payment issue does not come up in airbnb cases, because the renter pays in advance at the time of booking to airbnb. I believe the host doesn't get paid until after the stay (never been a host, so am not certain on this point). There were complaints in the beginning about how airbnb, being the middleman, got to use those funds in the interim.
111op, thanks for the links to the actual law. There's a 2011 amendment to the 2010 ordinance, which I didn't read through, but it doesn't change the wording in that relevant paragraph that 111op cited.
That said, I usually enjoy nytraveler's posts, so don't mean to pick on her especially in her spirited defense of not allowing airbnb renters into NYC.
nytraveler: No - it doesn't say you can let "people" say. It says you can let "natural persons" stay in your apartment. That would seem, by any sensible definition, not to include random strangers - but to allow family or close friends (about whom the tenant would presumably know a lot) to stay. [bolding mine]
Which, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion that airbnb renters, like myself, are "unnatural persons".
But only in New York presumably we're "natural persons" elsewhere.And no, since the rental would be illegal - there is no way any court would enforce payment. This would be like enforcing payment for a drug buy - no one is going to do it.
The non-payment issue does not come up in airbnb cases, because the renter pays in advance at the time of booking to airbnb. I believe the host doesn't get paid until after the stay (never been a host, so am not certain on this point). There were complaints in the beginning about how airbnb, being the middleman, got to use those funds in the interim.
Dec 9th, 2012, 09:02 AM
#78
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Natural persons" does not distinguish friends from strangers, it distinguishes human beings from corporations!
The issue here is whether the "guest" is paying for their accommodations. I would therefore guess (I haven't actually read the ordinance) that Air bnb guests would be illegal, someone you brought home for a 1-night er would be legal, a couchsurfer would technically be legal (I don't think there's any money involved) and someone staying in your apartment while you are gone (again, sans payment) would be legal.
All subject to the lease and condo/coop rules, of course.
The issue here is whether the "guest" is paying for their accommodations. I would therefore guess (I haven't actually read the ordinance) that Air bnb guests would be illegal, someone you brought home for a 1-night er would be legal, a couchsurfer would technically be legal (I don't think there's any money involved) and someone staying in your apartment while you are gone (again, sans payment) would be legal.
All subject to the lease and condo/coop rules, of course.
Dec 9th, 2012, 09:19 AM
#79
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sf7307: that's not the issue.
It's illegal to accept payment for short term renters only when the host is not present. Look at subparagraph 1(B).
1(A) which allows short term renters doesn't say anything about payment/nonpayment.
111op already quoted the relevant paragraphs of the ordinanace on Dec 8, 5:50pm (Pacific Time). Here they are again:
The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:
(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.
It's illegal to accept payment for short term renters only when the host is not present. Look at subparagraph 1(B).
1(A) which allows short term renters doesn't say anything about payment/nonpayment.
111op already quoted the relevant paragraphs of the ordinanace on Dec 8, 5:50pm (Pacific Time). Here they are again:
The following uses of a dwelling unit by the permanent occupants thereof shall not be deemed to be inconsistent with occupancy of such dwelling unit for permanent residence purposes:
(1) (A) occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons living within the household of the permanent occupant such as house guests or lawful boarders, roomers or lodgers; or (B) incidental and occasional occupancy of such dwelling unit for fewer than thirty consecutive days by other natural persons when the permanent occupants are temporarily absent for personal reasons such as vacation or medical treatment, provided that there is no monetary compensation paid to the permanent occupants for such occupancy.
