If you still want to independently turnout, and want to print your own flyers, we have posted a link to the file.  The flyer is double-sided.
http://stpcvta.org/flyers/LO_Flyer.pdf

If you are interested in staffing one or more future shifts, please email “cnac” at our domain name “stpcvta.org” with the time you can start and the amount of time you can spend.  If we get a good showing, we will resume organized action again.

We could used some Lieutenants to help us lead for a given day.  A handful of TA leaders can’t do this by themselves.  Send an email to (same as above) if you can help lead this action for a particular day.

If you show up on your own be mindful to keep a path on the sidewalk clear at all times.

If you are not going to be present and do not want to authorize management access to your apartment, call and reschedule your appointment and, if you are unable to because you have a problem getting through to management,  post a notice on your door indicating that you called to reschedule your appointment and also state that they do not have permission to enter on the original date.

With all these complaints—and now four confirmed “intercom installation” related burglaries in Stuyvesant Town—the tenants association urges caution when permitting management access to your home.  The TA wants you to be fully aware of your rights and responsibilities as it relates to these issues.

The TA has consulted with its counsel and, while every situation is unique and may require individual legal counsel, in summary, and then later in detail below, is what we were advised:

• Necessary repairs, improvements required by law, and inspections are lawful and you must comply.
• Landlords must give you proper notice and you have the right to be present in non-emergency cases.
• A failure to provide access as demanded does not result in immediate eviction; you have many opportunities to cure.
• Unlawful alterations to the apartment, fire safety issues, and hoarding could put you at risk for eviction, but you have multiple opportunities to cure these conditions.

Generally speaking tenants should cooperate with management and provide access where management seeks to make necessary repairs or improvements required by law or to inspect conditions in the apartment. Under § 2524.3 of the Rent Stabilization Code (“RSC”), in the case of inspections, management must give five days notice to the tenant and the date and time are to arranged at the mutual convenience of the parties so the tenant may be present at the inspection.  The NYC Multiple Dwelling Rules §25-101(a) require one week’s written notice for access for repairs and improvements required by law. 

A failure to provide access to the owner as demanded does not result in immediate eviction. There are multiple cure periods provided in the law.

Section 2524.1(c) of the RSC provides that “[n]o tenant of any housing accommodation shall be removed or evicted unless and until such removal or eviction has been authorized by a court . . . on a ground authorized in this Part or under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law.” Section 2524.3 of the RSC entitled “Proceedings for eviction—wrongful acts of tenant,” discusses the grounds upon which an action or proceeding to recover possession of any housing accommodation may be commenced without DHCR approval. Those grounds include occasions when a tenant “unreasonably refuse[s] the owner access to the housing accommodation for the purpose of making necessary repairs or improvements required by law or authorized by the DHCR”  That section (RSC § 2524.3 [e]) provides in full:

The tenant has unreasonably refused the owner access to the housing accommodation for the purpose of making necessary repairs or improvements required by law or authorized by the DHCR, or for the purpose of inspection or showing the housing accommodation to a prospective purchaser, mortgagee or prospective mortgagee, or other person having a legitimate interest therein; provided, however, that in the latter event such refusal shall not be a ground for removal or eviction unless the tenant shall have been given at least five days’ notice of the inspection or showing, to be arranged at the mutual convenience of the tenant and owner so as to enable the tenant to be present at the inspection or showing, and that such inspection or showing of the housing accommodation is not contrary to the provisions of the tenant’s lease or rental agreement.

A lease may provide other and further grounds for access.  However, any lease provision that is inconsistent with the RSC is unenforceable (9 NYCRR 2520.12; see also 9 NYCRR 2520.3 [”(t)his Code shall be construed so as to carry out the intent of the Rent Stabilization Law to ensure that such statute shall not be subverted or rendered ineffective, directly or indirectly . . .”]).

Where the owner alleges that a tenant has breached their lease by unreasonably refusing access, a 10-day notice to cure may be required under Rent Stabilization Code (RSC§ 2524.3 (a)). A further seven-day notice of termination is required before the owner can commence an eviction proceeding under RSC § 2524.2(c)(2).  Throughout this period the tenant has a right to cure and end the eviction proceeding.

Even if an eviction proceeding is commenced and the court finds that refusal of access was unreasonable, and even after a judgment of possession is issued against the tenant after trial, the tenant is still afforded an additional ten day period to cure under RPAPL 753(4) before an eviction can actually take place.

None of this is to suggest that requests for access to inspect by management should be ignored.  But such inspections should only be permitted for proper purposes and with proper notice. Tenants may insist that the inspections take place at a mutually convenient time so that they can be present.  If, however, the tenant is away for an extended period, arrangements should be made to allow a friend or relative to provide access to the apartment.

WHAT IF THE LANDLORD IS SEEKING ACCESS TO SEARCH FOR VIOLATIONS OF MY LEASE?

It is debatable that management has a right of access solely to search for lease violations—such as dishwashers, unauthorized alterations, accumulations of paper or refuse or other breaches of the lease. Nonetheless, motives are difficult to prove.

If you have made unlawful alterations, installed a dishwasher or other unauthorized appliance; or if you believe you have conditions such as stacks of accumulated newspapers or refuse that may prompt management to seek an eviction, you should attend to these things before management seeks an inspection (unless, in the case of appliances or alterations, you can argue that management knows of and has waived any objection to the condition you have).  If such conditions are found and they are clearly breaches of your lease, you should promptly correct or remove the conditions so to avoid litigation.  Again, however, if you are sued for a breach of your lease, you will have several opportunities to cure prior to facing actual eviction. 

In sum, a notice that you have breached your lease is something that you should take seriously—but it is by no means reason to panic.

Many Roberts tenants—about at least 1,000 individuals—got an unwelcome notice under their doors yesterday indicating that they are receiving a mid-lease rent increase—in some cases thousands of dollars per month.  Although CW Capital is exercising its prerogative to increase rents under the terms of the Roberts Settlement, the move is despicable, to say the least.

To focus press and public attention on this newest predatory move against affordability in Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, the Tenants Association and City Councilman Dan Garodnick along with other elected representatives are holding a press conference at 10:00am in front of the Stuyvesant Town Peter Cooper Village Leasing Office, located at First Avenue between 15th and 16th Streets.

If you received the notice under the door today, you are a member of the Roberts class and your blood should be boiling enough to make certain at least one family member or roommate gets to the press conference at 10:00am to let the world know you’re angry.  If you’re not part of Roberts, you don’t need anyone to tell you this is just the latest assault on the affordability and stability of a community we all need to join in protecting.

This affects all tenants of our community: this is a crude and callous act by CW Capital to cut through the heart of our community.  Two weeks notice on substantial rent increases is simply outrageous and is nothing short of heartless: this action was clearly planned well in advance, but CW Capital deliberately chose to give tenants just two weeks notice of their rental increases. 

We need to show solidarity for our community - a community of tenants that CW Capital is trying to tear apart.

Please try to join us for a serious show of strength:  10:00am, Wednesday, May 15, Stuyvesant Town Leasing Office.

UPDATE: 5/8/2013: A third report has just been confirmed in a third building, 620 E 20th St, again intercom related work, no forced entry, value of loss near $40,000 (forty-thousand dollars).  A police report has been filed and public safety notified.

The Tenants Association has received two separate reports of burglaries, one at 610 E 20th, the other at 319 Ave C.  According to the residents and investigating detectives, there was no sign of forced entry in either instance. Intercom repair work was underway in both buildings. Reports of two more burglaries are being verified at the time of this writing.

In the recent burglaries in two Stuy Town apartments, one resident lost $5,000 in jewelry, the other, $10,000 in jewelry. Both burglary cases—third degree grand larceny, a very serious Class D felony—are under investigation by the NYPD and Public Safety.

The TA also recently received two separate and presumably unrelated complaints from residents who returned home to find their doors left open by workers who had entered their apartments for repairs. Both of these “door left ajar” reports were from buildings receiving the new intercoms. One of the reports was from the building where one of the burglaries occurred and in the same time frame.

In another unwelcome development, workers are entering apartments without the tenant’s permission, according to a number of phone and e-mail reports to the Tenants Association.  Several were from residents who were at home when workers entered and were terrified to find strangers in their living rooms. The TA has also received tenant reports of workers entering their apartments despite their clear orders to management denying “permission to enter.”

In light of these reports and developments, the Tenants Association advises great caution when giving “permission to enter” and to think carefully about granting such permission. Non-emergency entry must be at a time mutually convenient to both tenant and owner and with sufficient notice. Tenants may want to consider double locking their doors with their secondary top-locks.

Commenting on these events, Tenants Association Chair Susan Steinberg said,  “ I remember a time when one could allow owner-employed maintenance personnel into one’s apartment without fear of losing valuables. And I remember a time when schedules were always negotiated with Resident Services, who would never dream of forcing an entry, except for an emergency such as water overflow, fire or serious gas leak. Tenants have the right to limit unannounced, unauthorized entries to actual emergency conditions and should insist that management respect these limits.”

Tenants are advised to report any suspicious behavior to Public Safety or the NYPD.

Although never a party to the suit, the Tenants Association was instrumental in helping to find the charter plaintiffs and has fought successfully for several years lobbying to prevent the nullification of the ruling by big real estate’s friends in the State Senate.

The settlement provides $68.75 million in damages for class member tenants who were overcharged market rate rents, going back to 2003. It also returns all formerly market rate apartments in both Peter Cooper and Stuyvesant Town to rent stabilized status until June 2020, when the J-51 benefits expire.

For details of the settlement, see the press release from the office of the Roberts lead attorneys.

All class members who have not yet done so should file their claims, on the designated forms, by the MAY 15, 2013 DEADLINE.  For more information visit the Berdon Claims’ website or phone 800-766-3330.

Please also see a statement on the settlement from Councilmember Dan Garodnick and his thoughtfully prepared “The Roberts Settlement in Plain Language”.

The Nominating Committee of the Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village Tenants Association (the “TA”) is soliciting candidates for election to its Board of Directors.

The election will take place in May 2013. To vote, members must be current in their dues as of April 17, 2013—the Record Date. In accordance with the TA bylaws, four Directors are up for reelection this year. Other TA members may run in accordance with the rules below.

Important Dates:

• Tue, March 26: Petitioning for a place on the ballot begins
• Fri, March 29: Final date for interested candidates seeking endorsement to apply
• Sat, April 6: Oval Forum for candidates to gather signatures/meet residents (rain date: 4/7)
• Thu, April 11: Petition drop-off date (in person)
• Fri, April 12: Final date for mailed petitions to be received

Residents who fulfill the requirements below may petition to share a place on the ballot:

• Must be 18 years of age or older;
• A resident of Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village;
• Current in Association dues as of Wednesday, April 17, 2013;
• Should be prepared to spend 20 to 50 or more hours each month on TA business;
• Commit to a monthly board meeting, and other phone or in-person TA meetings as needed.

How Do I Get on the Ballot?   There Are Two (2) Alternative Methods:

Application Process: The Tenants Association Board will endorse four (4) candidates.  Interested TA Members may submit their qualifications to the Nominating Committee for consideration as a candidate for the Board by Friday, March 29, 2013. A résumé, curriculum vitae (“CV”) and/or statement of two pages or less stating your qualifications to serve on the Board, including past community activities here and elsewhere, any relevant professional or work experience, and why you are interested in serving on the Board should be submitted via email to: nominations2013@stpcvta.org. Please be sure your résumé or CV includes your best contact number and email address.

—-OR—-

Petitioning Process: Interested TA Members may seek a place on the ballot by submitting a petition signed by forty-five (45) or more Members of the TA. For the purpose of the petition process, any resident of an apartment that is current in its dues as of Wednesday, April 17, 2013 is a Member of the TA. No more than one candidate’s name may be on any one petition. Individuals signing the petition must sign and print their name, address, apartment number, home phone number, and if available, an email address. The Nominating Committee will judge the validity of all petitions. While the Committee encourages any applicant to seek an interview, it cautions that the only way a candidate can ensure a ballot position is to complete the petitioning process.

Petitioning begins on Tuesday, March 26, 2013, and petition forms will be available on the Tenants Association website (stpcvta.org) that morning.  Completed petitions and other required items (see below) may be sent by mail to: Nominating Committee, ST/PCV Tenants Association, P.O. Box 1202, New York, NY 10009-1202. Petitions are due in the TA post office box no later than Friday, April 12, 2013. You may also deliver your petition in person to the Community Center at 449 East 14th Street (1st Avenue Loop) between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 11, 2013.

In addition to your petition with at least 45 valid signatures, you must submit:

• A statement with your name, address (including apartment), telephone and email;
• A statement that you are 18 years of age or older; and
• A summary of your qualifications in 100 words or less.

On November 11, 2012, management posted a letter from Andrew MacArthur of CW Capital to residents on the pvcst website announcing that residents would receive a rent abatement due to the loss of certain services as a result of Hurricane Sandy.  Mr. MacArthur stated:

“As a demonstration of our commitment, and in appreciation for all that you have been through since last Monday night, I am announcing that anyone who has been without heat, elevator service or electricity will not be charged rent for any day in which they were without one or more of these services.”

(Note:  The Tenants Association later convinced management to include loss of cooking gas in the abatement.)

However, residents who opened their rent bill this month may have found —in a “Dear Resident” letter tucked behind the bill — that there are limits to Mr. MacArthur’s and CW Capital’s commitment and appreciation for what residents went through and, in many cases, continue to go through as a result of Hurricane Sandy. After announcing rebates with no conditions attached, the notice slipped in with the rent bill tells residents that they can receive the abatement only if they agree to release CW and management from any and all liability, not just claims for a rent abatement but also for claims residents may have now or in the future against management for loss of property or injuries resulting from Hurricane Sandy.  The letter from management is a crass overreach, similar to the surprise that accompanied their announcement — without prior notice —  that tenants could retrieve their property from storage lockers only if they executed a similar overly broad release.

These actions by management and CW Capital are nothing more than a variation on the old “bait and switch” particularly because, in initially announcing the rebates, CW Capital , rather than being magnanimous, was merely recognizing the inevitable reality — that a court would order rebates if tenants sued.  Now, with this inappropriate tactic, CW is attempting to obtain something they would not have obtained had the matter been litigated — a general release of all claims.

The Tenants Association believes, for various reasons, that management’s effort to turn acceptance of the rebate into a general release that goes beyond abatement claims would fail if litigated.  However, the TA cannot provide residents with legal advice and cannot guarantee that any tenants who pay the lesser rent will not be releasing valuable claims. Thus, tenants who believe they may have claims now or in the future relating to property damage or health, apart from service-related claims, should carefully consider whether to accept the rent abatement or pay the full rent and also consult a lawyer. 

Lastly, the TA calls upon Mr. MacArthur and CW Capital to demonstrate that they have a real commitment and appreciation for residents of this community and what they have recently gone through and do what is right for them by publicly stating that any release for accepting the rebates will be limited to claims for loss of essential services.

Be aware that neither the attorneys for the Roberts class, nor the claims administrator, Berdon Claims Administration are making these calls.

Members of the class should not expect such calls and if they receive one should not share any personally identifiable information with the caller.  If caller ID is available note the phone number of the caller, the date and time of the call, and the gender of the caller and report this information to the Roberts attorneys at Wolf Haldenstein by calling 212-545-4600 and asking for Mr. Michael Liskow.

Class members should await official notification by postal mail from Berdon Claims Administration which is expected in early January.

We have created a survey for you to use to note when any of the following services were restored to your apartment: electricity, heat, hot water, cooking gas for your stove, elevators, working Intercoms, lobby lifts (PCV only), and in-building laundry facilities. The survey may be completed on line at http://www.stpcvta.org/sandyeval/.

In addition, please report whether you have sustained loss or damage for items stored in NTT basement storage lockers or for cars parked in garages. Also, let us know if you were one of the residents whose apartment was forcibly entered by management and Con Edison for the purpose of restoring gas service.

Your answers will help us develop the specifics we need to present in seeking abatements for you and other residents in addition to those management has offered.

Thank you for taking the time to give us your input.

Residents will have limited access to 3, 4, 5, 6 PCR; 441, 541, 601, 620 E20th St; 420, 440, 510, 530 E23rd St. Residents may retrieve personal property (NTT Storage or bikes) from these basements on weekdays from 5:30PM to 9PM and weekends from 10AM-2PM through November 30th. Any personal property not removed by November 30th will be discarded. Residents should go to the tent by PCV Playground 1 to be escorted into the basement.

What the notice did not say is that to gain access, residents would be required to execute a release.  The release is very broad and all encompassing.  It releases management, NTT and others involved in basement restoration from any claim whatsoever relating to or arising out of the tenant’s access to the Basement including, but not limited to, any actual or alleged injuries to (i) the tenant or any person(s) under the tenant’s control caused by or resulting from entering and being in the Basement; and (ii) any personal property located in the Basement.
While the Tenant’s Association cannot and is not providing residents with legal advice, we do believe that residents should think very carefully before signing this release.  The basements of many of these buildings have suffered serious damage and may well be contaminated with mold, among other possibilities. Workers in those buildings have been observed wearing protective suits and masks.  Management is asking you to sign this waiver and completely release them from any harm you may suffer without having made full disclosure to tenants of the extent of contaminants, if any, which may be in those basements.

In addition, the release waives any claim you may have for damage to property that is stored in the NTT lockers or the basements.  You should be aware that the Tenants Association has been consulting with its attorney regarding the possibility that tenants may have valid legal claims against management and NTT, as well as Quik Park, for losses incurred by tenants as a result of the flooding, notwithstanding any exculpatory language that may be contained in the storage and garage agreements. 

Lastly, we are exploring with our attorney legal actions that may be taken to prevent management from requiring this release and from discarding your property on November 30 if you refuse to execute the release.

To see a copy of the storage/waiver release click here.

The ST/PCV Tenants Association hopes that the bondholders themselves, as well as Wells Fargo in its role as Master Servicer of the CMBS trusts, CW Capital’s parent company Fortress, and the relevant bond rating agencies will see the wisdom in pursuing an offer that would provide an immediate recovery, rather than waiting while CW Capital continues to keep the property in limbo as it profits off it.

Said John Marsh, President of the Tenants Association, “Despite having teamed up with word-class legal and financial advisors, Paul Weiss and Moelis & Company, and a highly credible capital partner, Brookfield Asset Management, and communicating in multiple ways with CW Capital, it consistently declines to engage with us.” Marsh continued, “This is wrong and we believe that the bondholders, Wells Fargo in its role as Master Servicer of the CMBS trusts, CW Capital’s parent company Fortress, and the relevant bond rating agencies will view this issue differently.”

“After decades of peace in Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, the last six years have brought conflict, upheaval, and instability,” said Council Member Dan Garodnick.  “While we cannot point fingers at CW Capital for creating the problem, we certainly can fault them for prolonging it.”

The full letter to the tenants may be read here
The letter from Council Member Garodnick to CW Capital may be read here

For more than a year, Rose Associates had been videographing and photographing Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper residents entering Stuyvesant Oval and using these photos and videos in management’s advertising and promotional material.  Residents never explicitly granted their permission to use the images.  Rather, residents periodically noted the following sign posted in the Oval:

“The Stuyvesant Oval and surrounding areas will be videotaped.  If you walk in this area you may be on film. By entering the Oval area during this time period, you grant Rose Associates, Inc. and its representatives the right to take video footage of you and you agree that Rose Associates, Inc. may use such video for any lawful purpose, including, for example, such purposes as advertising, publicity, illustration and Web content.” 

Acting on complaints from residents who were unpleasantly surprised to find their images and those of their children appearing on the PCVST.com website, on Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, Facebook and in a scrolling display in the window of the renting office on First Avenue, the TA brought the matter to the attention of the new General Manager Sean Sullivan in a letter.

At a meeting on quality-of-life issues, several Board members discussed the issue with Mr. Sullivan, who said he would look into the matter.  Within a few days the offending photos had been removed from management’s web sites and other advertising material.  The Oval signage was also taken down and there has been no further evidence of active videographing or photographing of residents at Oval events since that time.

Tenants Association Board Chair, Susan Steinberg commended Mr. Sullivan for his “quick and decisive” response.  “This ends an uncomfortable, and potentially illegal, practice which meant that anytime you attended an event, strolled through the Greenmarket, or even just went home, you could find your image used in promotional materials.  That had to end, and we thank Sean Sullivan for his thoughtfulness and responsiveness in working with us on this.”

“Two notices from the Roberts attorneys that were posted on this site, one on April 6, 2011 and one on May 14, 2012, discussed an issue involving the “preferential rents” reflected in the Owner’s leases with Roberts tenants.  The issue concerned whether, as a result of certain events that may occur in the lawsuit, the Owner would be able to raise the “preferential rent” the tenant was paying (sometimes referred to as the “lower rent to be charged”) to the higher “legal rent” during the term of a lease. The Roberts attorneys stated that the Owner had stated that it would charge the lower rent for the duration of the lease term and seek up to the “legal” rent only upon renewal.  Based upon current information, the Roberts attorneys are now updating their statement to state that the Owner is no longer so stating.  All tenants should keep that in mind for their current lease as well as when signing leases for future tenancies.”