As a clarification, the apartment I rented was a corporate rental described on the corporation's website as being one of four executive suites available as part of their service for their clients, as well as being available for rental at times when it was not needed by them.

Is that type of situation still problematic?

NP, like it or not, buildings with stable owners who actually live in the building and have pride of ownership are more valuable than buildings where many of the units are rented out (I'm talking about coops or condos, not about buildings that are meant to be rentals).

sf7307, of course that is true, but if condo units were originally sold with the understanding of being available for rental or being purchased by "investment owners" who understood their units could be rented out -- that is quite a different thing. Nevertheless, sometimes some purchasers buy there to live and after a while want to change the overall idea of the building so that everybody is just like them. In other words, they do everything in their power to remove the owners who bought their unit with a different understanding that theirs.

As I mentioned before the bylaws of the units I was discussing above included how the units could be rented out short term. Managing those short term rentals via a pre approved meeting with tenants has become the issue as it simply is not a doable thing -- yet the bylaws still imply that the units ARE OK for short term rentals. That's quite different from a condo or coop that has bylaws which strictly state that "NO unit may be rented for less than one year" or other such rules.

If someone bought in a building that has bylaws which suggest that short term rentals by owners ARE allowed, then owners there have no right to suddenly decide they don't like that and that it should be stopped. The bottom line is that THOSE owners bought in the wrong building and now want to make it something other than what THEY bought. Their efforts would be better spent to policing tenants who DO cause problems, rather than sitting around trying to insist that NO renters should be allowed, because it cheapens their investment. They are the ones who made a "false" investment if they bought in a building that allowed short term rentals to begin with. Get it? Once again the building I am talking about -- huge and built about 20 years ago -- was actually originally marketed including the idea of corporations and indivduals owning them as executive suites, etc.

If you're talking about a building that has never allowed any such rentals, then you and I are on two entirely different subjects here.

"I guess the thinking is that it's just fine if long stay people get burned up in a fire, but not OK if overnight guests do."

Neo, the theory behind it is that people who live in the building are familiar with the location of the exits, fire extinguishers, etc. whereas overnight renters are not. A fire inspection also ensures that there will be working smoke detectors, something which an owner may or may not choose to have for themselves, but which most people renting an apartment would definitely want.

SueNYC, we had the best time, as you can imagine only nine women/girls can do! : ) None of us is a shopper so we were able to spend all our time seeing and doing all the fun that is to be had in Manhattan.

It made it even more fun that we were with our daughters, ranging from 21 to 29. Case in point is that we ended up seeing American Idiot...and loved it!

Thanks for asking!

It is illegal to rent apartments in NYC for under 30 days. Why one would ask? It is a violation of buiding and fire codes. Have you heard of cases where babies fall out of windows and die in NYC? Hotels prevent this from happening by having specail windows and apartment owners must provide window guards for children. Owners who rent out their apartments do not take this step to insure safety. Also, hotels have special fireproofing and alarm systems to assist guests who are "strangers" to the hotel...apartmentn buildings do not offer the same protections.

Bottom line it is illegal and owners and guests can be subject to heavy penalties. Owners have potential criminal liability as well.

NYC: I notice that you just joined Fodor's and this is your only post. I wonder if what you posted is your opinion, or if you are in a position to actually know what you posted to be true. Is there an actual 30-day limit?

In the building I lived in for many years, a midtown condo with quite a few remaining rent stabilized tenants, the sponsor/owner rented to transients the apartments that he could not sell at the time. He did not hide this fact. I am actually surprised that he would take the chance of doing something that was actually illegal, although perhaps I am naive.

I am in a posiion to know. You are probably referring to situations where Sponsor's rent apartments themselves or through corporate housing companies furnished, on a short term basis. This is legal (meets all building and housing codes) provided the tenancies are for 30 day minimums. A 29 day stal is illegal...30 is perfectly fine.

Yes, he did that too, with the corporate housing. We got used to seeing those vans from the rental funiture companies pull up and disgorge the giant tvs and hideous furniture!

But later, he also began to rent apartments for a few days....the other tenants were none too pleased with this but there was little we could do at the time.

Was this on West 57th Street?

Neopatrick -

My neighbor never rented short-term. If she had and there were people coming in and out with suitcases all the time we would have taken legal action against her immediately - and changed the locks so she couldn't allow anyone in the building.

In a co-op you want to know who your neighbors are for security first - and if someone is renting to transients who knows who they are (not that many travelers will be doing things that are inappropriate - but there is then NO security of keys are floating around all over the place).

The problems caused by her illegal subtenants included:

Damage to elevator and front steps (marble steps and unrepairable damage) caused during moving in or out (since her tenants moving in and out were unknown they didn't contact building staff to make sure that proper precautions were taken

Tying up the elevator for hours moving in/out, seriously inconveniencing other tenants (esp a few elderly who cannot climb the stairs) - again since they didn't have staff monitoring the move

Causing an infestation of vermin (twice - by 2 different tenants) by leaving dirty recyclables and even bags of trash in the compacter rooms instead of disposing properly. Legitimate tenants having to leave their apartments for a couple of days while the exterminator cleans them out is only slightly less of a pain than finding mice in your kitchen. (And the building had to pick up the extra costs of exterminations.)

Loud parties/drugs. One sub-tenant apparently couldn;t pay the rent and took in several roommates - 4 young guys in a 1-bedroom - and they had several loud parties until the wee hours - until we started calling the police every time the music didn't stop by 10pm. They were also smoking pot - which is how we eventually got rid of them - calling the police and complaining they were dealing drugs. Once the police got inside there was enough evidence to arrest a couple of them and the others disappeared.

I don't want to go any further - but I think you can see why this is a really bad idea from the point of view of the owners/legitimate tenants. (Not that we are all perfect or the best of friends - but our interviewing process gives us the chance to investigate people very thoroughly and keep out obvious problems/unsuitable people.)

Eventually we put in a new security system and tenants had to appear in person to obtain the entry fobs. Since the owner illegally subletting no lives in CA she wasn't able to get one - and between that and our legal actions she eventually gave up and sold the apartment.

nytraveler, you have my sympathy, but I have no idea what all this has to do with the original discussion here which was about "vacation" or "executive" rentals. Those people don't "move in" nor do any of the things you mention have anything to do with such rentals. You and I are on two entirely different subjects here.

The differences between what you are talking about and some couple visiting New York for a theatre week and renting a nicely furnished apartment for something like a thousand dollars or more for one week -- are enormous. In fact the two are virtually unrelated.

But your point and is made. You despise renters whom you feel are all inferior to people who own their own unit, even if those renters are people who live in their own multi million dollar house somewhere and are willing to pay huge prices for a nicely furnished apartment for a week. I guess I'm offended as a person who sometimes rents someone else's NICE apartment (and I am very picky) that some people here assume as a renter I must be some kind of white trash troublemaker.

I'm not getting deep into THAT discussion, but I don't understand why the tenant was not kicked out if he or she was causing so much trouble with her illegal sublets. Why were her tenants even allowed to tie up the elevator for hours?

NYC: Not on West 57th. In the East 50s.

ekscrunchy, you have a great point and ask a great question. Many of these discussions seem to go off on tangents about horrible people who were in an apartment -- the fact is that often they are owners who do these things and not just renters. Some people are horrible excuses for human beings -- being a condo owner does not automatically make them a better person than a renter.

So someone had a horrible renter -- it can happen as easily AFTER an interview as without one. Do you honestly think the people who have stated in an interview that they were going to tie up the elevator, they were going to party, and they were going to smoke pot? Do you really think that a board or committee is really able to tell in an interview what the people are going to be like after they move in? The real issue is -- when there is a problem get them out -- it really doesn't make any difference how they got there in the first place.

I guess I don't understand the "I got away with it therefore it must be legal" logic. So if I speed down the road and don't get caught, it's not against the law? You can rationalize all day, but it doesn't change the fact that short term rentals in NYC are not legal. I'll always stay at a nice comfy hotel.

NeoPatrick, again you're right that horrible and great tenants can be long term or short term. And whether it's stupid that interviews need to be done (according to "the rules")30 days in advance doesn't matter. They exist.

The real issue for travelers to consider is that
as said over and over again: most but not all short term apartment rentals in NYC are illegal. Why? Leave it as "just because".

Let everyone decide on their own moral standards. Listen to the arguments explaining why the rules/laws/bylaws exist or don't listen. Agree with the reasons or don't. Take your chances or don't take your chances.


Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware

suewoo, you left a word out of your post. Right before the words "short term rentals in NYC. . ." you left out the word "some" or even "most" if you prefer. But indicating that there are NO such things as some legal short term rentals in NYC is just plain wrong.

And it's also nice that because you like a "comfy hotel" instead of an apartment, you seem to suggest that everyone else should too -- or did I get that wrong?

They mayor's office took a hard look at this issue. The laws are quite complicated but clear to the lawyers and politicians. It is ILLEGAL to rent an apartment for less than 30 days...period. I can go on and on as to why they are illegal but too boring a discussion for this forum.

Neo,

I am not going to take a chance. I have heard horror stories and when I visit NYC I don't want the hassle.

I was referring to my personal preference.

Guys. I am an attorney and worked with the mayor's office on this very issue. It is illegal in ALL residential apartment buildings to rent apartments for less than 30 days, period.