But what if you own a single apartment?

This is the reply I got when I asked if the apartment was legal.

"Yes, due to the size of the building, it is legal".

I'm not aware of any such thing as a free-standing apartment - wouldn't that be a house?

Owning one apartment in a multi-family building would be a condo or co-op - and subject to their rules - as well as the law.

So, there are no buildings in NYC where you can own one unit without it being a condo or co-op? And even if that's the case, is it also always the case that the building rules will bar sub-lets. And again, what about the "relationship" clause? Does meeting someone for drinks or dinner constitute a relationship?

How can you own a unit without it being a condo or coop? In San Francisco, there is such a thing as tenancy-in-common, where you own a share of a whole building, and by written agreement have the right to exclusively occupy a particular unit. This is a legal form that was invented for the purpose of skirting condominium conversion rules, but they'd be subject to the same laws and they definitely have articles and by laws just like a condo or coop.

As for "relationships", is the person you just met for drinks or dinner paying you to stay in your apartment? If so, it's illegal.

nelsonian, I'm sorry but you are being naïve if you just accept the word of someone who obviously will not tell you that they are doing something illegal.

People are often told what they can do with their own property through zoning or other ordinances and through co op boards , HOAs and the like .

So, what effect does this have on couchsurfing, which is free?

When did this become an issue? vrbo has been operating, apparently illegally, for years, but I have only heard a fuss being made since airbnb got started. As a solo traveler apartments are usually out of my price range, and airbnb is much more attractive than vrbo.

Not to be unkind - but it doesn't make any difference what is attractive for the traveler. The rent laws in NYC are for the benefit of the residents - with the goal of maximizing decent affordable housing for the middle and working classes. Apartments, which are often subsidized by local tax benefits, are NOT meant for vacationers.

SF7307 - what you are describing is a co-op - which are very common in NYC.

"Owners" own shares in a corporation that allows them to reside in an apartment in the building (which they have bought). Co-ops typically have VERY stringent rules in their leases banning any form of subletting without prior written approval of either the managing agent or the board - and is never given for short-term - or without a full financial/criminal investigation and an interview with the potential subtenant.

There is a shortage of apartments in NYC. Short term renters (less than 30 days) make these apt. houses full of transients. It does not help those who actually need a permanent place to live in NYC. And, many "tourists" rent a room and then bring in their friends. It can be a nightmare for those who make this building their actual home.

Just for clarification (and slightly OT because it really has no bearing on whether its illegal or against the rules), but a tenancy-in-common and a coop are not legally-speaking the same animal.

Condo=you own the air rights (i.e. the interior of your specific apartment). The building is owned in common with the other condo owners, either directly, or via the association. You have the right to the non-exclusive use of most common areas, and sometimes have the right to exclusive common areas (parking spot, storage, roof deck, bike rack).

Coop- the coop corporation owns the entire building and the residents own the shares in the corporation. As an owner of shares, you have the right to occupy your specific unit, and to use the common areas (same as above, either non-exclusively or, sometimes, exclusively (ex. parking spot, roof deck)

Tenancy-in-Common - all the owners own all of the building, including the structure, roof, garage, storage, etc., in undivided interests. You have an agreement among you as to who will occupy which unit, and may also allocate certain common areas for exclusive use.

thursdaysd: <i>So, what effect does this have on couchsurfing, which is free?</i>

So far, nothing much, since the NY press and public hasn't been aroused against the couchsurfing community as it has against airbnb and small property owners. It appears that one can have as many "transients" pass through one's apartment, condo, coop, as long as there is no filthy lucre involved. :)

<i>When did this become an issue? vrbo has been operating, apparently illegally, for years, but I have only heard a fuss being made since airbnb got started. As a solo traveler apartments are usually out of my price range, and airbnb is much more attractive than vrbo.</i>

The current issue arose because someone got someone from the city "environmental" office to come and take a look -presumably only at this one unit - then that someone in the city environmental office got an environmental lawyer to sit in as judge and voila! down came the current decision. (Yes, this is a biased viewpoint with all kinds of half-truths, just like some of the opinions offered above).

We have been over this before. The city law has two sections. There is confusion as to which section applies to what. Someone should link to those two sections again or at least to the previous lengthy discussion on Fodors.

nelsonian may or may not be naive. If an owner owns all four units in a fourplex, he can do with the units however he pleases. I believe I saw some owner state exactly this on airbnb that he/she owned all of the units and therefore was doing nothing illegal.

There's a tendency on the part of those who want the NYC law to apply to airbnb, vrbo and the like to state categorically that such short-term rentals are prohibited. The reality is not all that clearcut, which is why this controversy has been around for several years now.

At least now the courts have made it amply clear.

There was a very interesting discussion of this on Askmetafilter yesterday, with emphasis on the Bay Area in California.

The discussion was from the point of view of a potential host, and the conclusion was that this is illegal in SF, even without a court ruling, that it is probably not permitted in his lease, endangering his tenancy, and that the liability issues for the host are huge.

That said, I just got back from a happy week in an illegal rental in Paris, where the city is cracking down because, as in US cities, there are housing shortages for locals. Not easy.

Short term rentals in the Quarter in New Orleans are also illegal. I wonder if they'll take a similar Air Bnb stand to that taken by the NY Judge?

So as a tourist, airbnb has been fantastic for me, and allowed me to stay in nice areas and apartments for less than $100/night. And its fantastic for the owner, to make cash out of an empty room...

Let me get this straight, if the stay is hosted, ie the owner lives in the apartment, the stay is legal?

I think it is a pretty crap rule though, and i can see overpriced hotels cheering about the rule.

Capitalism? Land of the free?? Lol.

Cheers,
Dan

I will not explain yet again the specific conditions of the real estate market in the city of new york. Suffice it to say that the laws are designed to provide affordable housing for middle and working class new yorkers - not provide cheaper lodging for tourists or illegally line the pockets of cheating landlords.

As for capitalism - we have modified it in a lot of ways - and given the housing shortage here - we don;t want to provide cheap lodging for tourists at the price of affordable housing for locals (who live here the whole year and VOTE).

Fair enough, but if we had to pay 300/night for a hotel we wouldbe taking the money out of our eating and spending money. Cheap accommodation means more money spent in the city, instead of hotels.

I am still puzzled by the notion that it is all about cheating landlords. My impression was that rentals on airbnb were more one-offs by individuals.

It is about both:

Individuals subletting illegally and against the conditions of their lease

And some landlords choosing to rent short term apartments that are zoned for long-term residences - without hotel safety and fire regulations complied with - and illegally taking rent stabilized rentals of the market (Getting perhaps $3K per month for apts that should legally rent for $1200 per month to locals)

Amsterdam is now addressing this issue with standards for short term sublets/vac rentals. I would expect that many cities in tourist areas will be adopting more specific language and guidelines.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/20410...n-rentals.html

danielc118: "Fair enough, but if we had to pay 300/night for a hotel we wouldbe taking the money out of our eating and spending money. Cheap accommodation means more money spent in the city, instead of hotels."

"More money spent in the city instead of hotels" doesn't make sense to me. You are spending money in the city by way of spending it at hotels. And, anyway there are RESIDENTS of NYC who pay taxes, hold jobs, and who actually are supposed to be LIVING in those "tourist cheap" apartments.

"who actually are supposed to be LIVING in those "tourist cheap" apartments."

I seriously don't have a problem going after landlords trying to beat the rent-control laws. But I do have a problem with individuals not being able to rent out a room in their flat, or the whole flat, on an ad hoc basis - when they leave for a couple of weeks at the beach, for instance. And I do wonder how this affects couch surfing.

Looks like Amsterdam may have the right approach (again).

Standard NYC apt leases ban short-term sublets - and landlords have the right to enforce that. Tenants do not have the right to ignore it.

Legal tenants (who have proved their suitability to the landlord in the application process - income, references, job history etc) have the right not to have a parade of unknown transients marching through their homes.

If someone wants the right to rent out rooms in their residence they have the choice of buying their own homes - either for moderate prices in some parts of the outer boroughs or for very high prices in Manhattan or more upscale areas of brooklyn and queens. No one is stopping them.

Couch surfing is in no way covered or forbidden by these NYC laws. It's the acceptance of money that is against the law, and then only for short term rentals. Otherwise, people who rent apartments are actually entitled to have one long term roommate. Building rules dictate whether or not owners can have a roommate.

So the "parade of unknown transients" is not forbidden. Just making some extra money off it.

I see Air BnB now wants to help the tenant who was fined by NYC with his appeal. They may be sorry if the answer doesn't go their way.

In the Bay Area, AirBnB has maintained that it isn't their responsibility to ensure that hosts follow the law, but maybe with the publicity this case is getting, they are being forced to stick their necks out.

Legal tenants (who have proved their suitability to the landlord in the application process - income, references, job history etc) have the right not to have a parade of unknown transients marching through their homes.

Not really sure what a parade of transients looks like, but i suspect its usually (based on my experience) a couple with a suitcase each a big smile on their faces and a slightly confused look as they try to find the right place.

At what point are they "parading through peoples homes"? Are apartments in NY different to here? People move through our common areas all the time, thats why they are common. I consider my home to start at the front door to my apartment...

I think you are pushing an agenda here NYtraveller. I am not sure what the deal is with landlords and rent subsidies, but that sounds like a media beatup pushed by the hotel association to me.

I suspect that most airbnb places in NY are people with a spare room.

I personally live in an apartment block where about 3 people have rooms up on airbnb, and the "parade of transients" affects me not one little bit. In fact I have been thinking of doing the same thing to help with rent costs, which arent capped here. (australia sounds more capitalist than NY lol.)

Anyway, there still seem to be a lot of NY places on Airbnb which is good because i'll need a place to stay when I come at the end of the year :-)

Anyone who has access to the building - that is with a key or fob to the front door - is a potential risk. Granted that most tourists are perfectly law abiding, some re not and some are going to be partiers (this is why all hotels have security staff - to deal with problems) and apartment buildings do not have this security. Never mind the number of people that are walking around or passing on or losing keys to the building.

If it turns out the subtenants are playing loud music at all hours, bringing strangers home with them, using drugs or ???? the legal tenants then may not be secure getting to and fro their apartments - and calling the police may be necessary.

A friend of mine in a small co-op had one tenant sublet illegally to a pair of students who brought in friends that ended up living there part of the time and the group threw numerous late night parties, along with apparent drug use - before they could be removed from the building. When she returned home after a play or late dinner she didn't feel safe in her own building.

Legal residents have the right not to have to deal with problems with this, including not feeling safe in their own public areas.

If laws are otherwise in other cities - that is their choice.

This is what NYC has chosen and tourists are just going to have to learn to deal with it.

"I suspect that most airbnb places in NY are people with a spare room."

Except that the PR that Airbnb is putting out is that this case involved was an unusual situation. It sounds as if their lawyers are already conceding that renting an entire apartment for short term rentals (anything of 29 days or less) is illegal.

This isn't a court decision. It's a decision by a NY administrative agency.

Yes you are right BigRuss, an Administrative Law "Judge" who hears building/zoning violations. Appeals to a Board are the next step. After that,assuming they lose which I expect, it remains to be seen if AirBnB will really fund an appeal to a real court.

My guess is that AirBnB wants NY to adopt some clarifications to the codes either in advance of any appeal to a real court, or as part of a settlement agreement.

I would be very suprised if airbnb did Not fund an appeal, mlgb.

It's all so interesting because that idiot site, Virtual Tourist, is still touting air bnb as a viable option for NYC stays. It'll be a long time before the law becomes practice.

There is no way Air BnB will challenge the NYS law. they have no grounds and would lose. And the Supreme Court will NOT hear this kind of case.

they will simply continue to ignore the law and leave the tourists to take the consequences - if any - in specific circumstances.

What is the first court that would hear the case in NY, nytraveler?

The only thing I think Airbnb would have a case for would be vague language, as it relates to an apartment dweller renting his room out on occasion. If the Board denies the appeal, then we will see what happens at the first court level.

As far as enforcement, that is really up to NYC.

There is no case.

Air BnB has not filed a case.

And I'm not sure they have the standing to file a case - since no legal action has been taken against them - as a third party to the violation.

They have no grounds to file a case.

If they want to change the laws of the state of New York they can try working with the state legislature (hah!). that would fix them.

The judge found that what the tenant did through Air BnB is illegal and fined the tenant - not Air BnB. And as more legal tenants complain more tenants subletting illegally will be fined.

The city will crack down on egregious violators (Landlords holding a number of apts off the rental market to do these illegal sublets) - but most will probably be reported by neighbors who value their safety/security more than the illegal cash in another tenant's pocket.

Hopefully enough people will be caught and fined that tenants will stop doing this.

The City of New York is not going to sue Air BnB - which is a third party - not the violator. It's just as illegal is the apt is offered through Craig's list or any other online site.

What Air BnB should do - as a responsible corporate citizen - is inform people of the laws in the state of NY - and not accept these illegal listings. it is their chiuce not to do so. Since they are making a lot of money doing this my suspicion is that they will not rock the boat and hope tenants keep doing this.

I was going to quote bits of this, but I think it's worth reading in its entirety:

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...n-airbnb-host/

Airbnb was allowed to participate in the initial hearing as a "discretionary intervenor" and to submit arguments about the interpretation of the Administrative Code. If the tenant(actually he is standing in for the owner) decides to appeal to the Board, Airbnb says they will particpate. One assumes that they will also have standing if the tenant/owner decides to appeal the Board's decision to a "real" court.