Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Millionaire Cyndi Lauper fights for her $508/month rent controlled Manhattan apt..

  1. #1

    Default Millionaire Cyndi Lauper fights for her $508/month rent controlled Manhattan apt..

    Sorry, but nobody should be entitled to have a $508/month Manhattan apartment via government price-fixing. Especially not super-millionaires like Cyndi Lauper.

    Rent control/stabilization is a cancer, and needs to be eliminated ASAP. If someone owns an apartment/house, they should be allowed to sell it or rent it for whatever the market will bear. Let the market decide the price.

    =================
    Lauper Suing Apartment Owner Over Rent

    By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
    Sun May 29,12:08 PM ET

    Cyndi Lauper may be a pop-star who's sold millions of albums, but that doesn't mean she wants to pay much more than $500 for her apartment on Manhattan's Upper West Side.

    Lauper, 51, and her husband David Thornton, an actor who's appeared in numerous movies, including "A Civil Action" and 2002's "Swept Away," with Madonna, are suing the owners of their luxury apartment building. Lauper and Thornton claim they were cheated out of thousands of dollars in rent in a scheme to end rent stabilization for their residence.

    Lawyers for the two sides are scheduled to appear before the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, on June 7. That's just before Lauper, known for her 1980s hits "Girls Just Want to Have Fun," "Time After Time" and "I Drove All Night," starts a short tour to support her recently released live album.

    In 1992, 390 West End Associates entered into a lease with Shlomo Baron for an apartment in its building in Manhattan. While the prior tenant had paid just $508 a month for the rent stabilized apartment, Baron agreed to pay $2,400 a month under an agreement he would not use the dwelling as his primary residence.

    Baron then sublet the apartment to Lauper and her husband for $3,250 a month, according to court documents.

    Six months later, a state Supreme Court judge ruled the apartment was exempt from the rent stabilization law because Baron wasn't using it as his primary residence.

    In 1996, the Thorntons sued Baron, seeking to recover what they paid in excess of the legal stabilized rent plus damages. In 1999, 390 West End moved to vacate the judgment it won in getting the apartment exempted from rent stabilization on the grounds its agreement with Baron was illegal. That motion, which ended the lease with Baron, was granted in 2000.

    Subsequently, the Thorntons sued 390 West End, seeking to get their rent reduced to the stabilized price of $508 a month.

    Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Thorntons except for the manner of determining rent. The court determined that the four-year limitation period adopted in the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 precluded it from considering the rent history before 1996, four years before the Thorntons' suit against the building owner.

    However, the court rejected 390 West End's argument that rent should be set at the $2,400 a month Baron agreed to pay. Instead, the court used a default formula adopted by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal to determine rent should be set at $989 a month.

    The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

    Magda Cruz, an attorney representing 390 West End Associates, declined to comment on the case before speaking with her client.

    Darryl Vernon, the attorney representing the Thorntons, did not return a call for comment.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050529/.../people_lauper

  2. #2

    Default She won.

    I won't be buying her albums. Who else takes advantage of a reprehensible law? Mia Farrow did for a long time but got busted after the Soon Yi scandal. Rosario Dawson got her entire building for free and gave some lame interview about the sorrows of squatting. So everyone who is a squatter gets to take the building from the owner because you suffered having to squat there?

  3. #3
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Poor mumu ...

    Study up on the legal history of NYC to understand the benefit of laws that protect those who rent.

    And remember that in the USA all are created equal -- and therebore all are entitled to the benefits of the laws of the land.

  4. #4
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mumu View Post
    I won't be buying her albums. Who else takes advantage of a reprehensible law? Mia Farrow did for a long time but got busted after the Soon Yi scandal. Rosario Dawson got her entire building for free and gave some lame interview about the sorrows of squatting. So everyone who is a squatter gets to take the building from the owner because you suffered having to squat there?
    There's a sad ignorance in this post^.

  5. #5

    Default

    Lofter and BR please help those of us who are not as insightful and explain why you are not bothered by such examples of how messed up rent stabilization/control laws are in this city? Because I sure as hell can't make sense of it. Much appreciated.

  6. #6
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Do a word / topic search of "rent stabilized" / "rent stabilization" here at wny -- there has been ample discussion on the subject and many posts are available for those who are interested.

  7. #7
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Poor mumu ...
    I'm not sure why, but reading those two words sent me into a fit of laughter.

  9. #9
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    that's ^^^ half of what I'm here for ...

  10. #10
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by normaldude View Post
    Sorry, but nobody should be entitled to have a $508/month Manhattan apartment via government price-fixing. Especially not super-millionaires like Cyndi Lauper.

    Rent control/stabilization is a cancer, and needs to be eliminated ASAP. If someone owns an apartment/house, they should be allowed to sell it or rent it for whatever the market will bear. Let the market decide the price.

    =================
    Lauper Suing Apartment Owner Over Rent

    By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
    Sun May 29,12:08 PM ET

    Cyndi Lauper may be a pop-star who's sold millions of albums, but that doesn't mean she wants to pay much more than $500 for her apartment on Manhattan's Upper West Side.

    Lauper, 51, and her husband David Thornton, an actor who's appeared in numerous movies, including "A Civil Action" and 2002's "Swept Away," with Madonna, are suing the owners of their luxury apartment building. Lauper and Thornton claim they were cheated out of thousands of dollars in rent in a scheme to end rent stabilization for their residence.

    Lawyers for the two sides are scheduled to appear before the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, on June 7. That's just before Lauper, known for her 1980s hits "Girls Just Want to Have Fun," "Time After Time" and "I Drove All Night," starts a short tour to support her recently released live album.

    In 1992, 390 West End Associates entered into a lease with Shlomo Baron for an apartment in its building in Manhattan. While the prior tenant had paid just $508 a month for the rent stabilized apartment, Baron agreed to pay $2,400 a month under an agreement he would not use the dwelling as his primary residence.

    Baron then sublet the apartment to Lauper and her husband for $3,250 a month, according to court documents.

    Six months later, a state Supreme Court judge ruled the apartment was exempt from the rent stabilization law because Baron wasn't using it as his primary residence.

    In 1996, the Thorntons sued Baron, seeking to recover what they paid in excess of the legal stabilized rent plus damages. In 1999, 390 West End moved to vacate the judgment it won in getting the apartment exempted from rent stabilization on the grounds its agreement with Baron was illegal. That motion, which ended the lease with Baron, was granted in 2000.

    Subsequently, the Thorntons sued 390 West End, seeking to get their rent reduced to the stabilized price of $508 a month.

    Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Thorntons except for the manner of determining rent. The court determined that the four-year limitation period adopted in the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 precluded it from considering the rent history before 1996, four years before the Thorntons' suit against the building owner.

    However, the court rejected 390 West End's argument that rent should be set at the $2,400 a month Baron agreed to pay. Instead, the court used a default formula adopted by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal to determine rent should be set at $989 a month.

    The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

    Magda Cruz, an attorney representing 390 West End Associates, declined to comment on the case before speaking with her client.

    Darryl Vernon, the attorney representing the Thorntons, did not return a call for comment.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050529/.../people_lauper
    Your right on th emoney these type of subsidized housing is the reason overall housing is so dahm high. If I have some payint 500 for a apartment and the overall buildings property taxes are high, the only way to make it up is by charging others in the building higher rates then needed

  11. #11
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    These subsidies are not the reason housing is so expensive. That is an old argument that holds no water. It has been disproven again and again. There has been a building boom in this city and more apartments have become deregulized or were simply demolished. Nothing new is stabilized or rent-controlled. AND, housing prices haven't dropped AT ALL.

  12. #12

    Default

    Tomorrow they could build 25,000 new market rate apartments in Manhattan. Overall prices will not drop as a result. Most likely they would just keep on rising. More apartments in Manhattan simply bring in more people.

    The same way new highways increase traffic.

  13. #13
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    NYers have lived with these laws for 35+ years.

    Get used to it. Quit crying about it.

    Or do something constructive to change the situation.

  14. #14

    Default

    There are two separate issues here, that are being mashed together.

    #1: If the law allows Cindy Lauper or any other celebrity to pay $500 rent, then he or she should pay $500 rent. If you think a law is stupid, then you should try to change the law, not insult law-abiding celebrities. There is no celebrity exemption to the law.

    #2: That said, the law here is not merely stupid but criminally so. The notion that one million rent stabilized and regulated apartments do not contribute to the housing shortage in this City is ridiculous. There is no economist on the planet who would argue that. And the further notion (enforced by my own assemblyman) that there should be no means testing for any but a handful of these apartments is beyond ridiculous. Subsidizing poor persons' housing costs through rent control is merely inefficient. Subsidizing rich persons' housing costs through rent control, however, is unjustifiable on any level.

  15. #15
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    NYers have lived with these laws for 35+ years.

    Get used to it. Quit crying about it.

    Or do something constructive to change the situation.
    The system cant change, its imbeded. NY does things today like they did 50 years ago. Cant be changed so might as well compain to get frustration out.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lower East Side Tenement Museum fights for expansion
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 6th, 2010, 06:38 PM
  2. The Bottom Line May Close Over Rent
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 26th, 2004, 01:14 AM
  3. Brooklyn construction 8/03 - yeah, once a month..
    By Gulcrapek in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 18th, 2003, 02:34 PM
  4. Architectural historian fights for Harlem's treasures - Tryi
    By NoyokA in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 9th, 2003, 01:40 PM
  5. 222 East 41st Street - To be completed next month
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 15th, 2002, 12:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software