babs said,

November 10, 2006 @ 6:45 pm

Here’s why:
LEASE TERMINATIONS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL

Individuals entering or called to active duty in the military service may terminate a residential lease if: (1) the lease was executed by the service member before he/she entered active duty; and (2) the leased premises have been occupied by the member or his/her dependents. Any such lease may be terminated by written notice delivered to the landlord at any time following the beginning of military service. Termination of a lease requiring monthly payments is not effective until 30 days after the first date on which the next rent is due. For example, if rent is due on the first day of the month, and notice is mailed on January 1, then rent is next due on the first of February and the effective date of lease termination is the first of March (N.Y. Military Law § 309).

This is not new, and has nothing to do w. Bush and/or Iraq.

jon p said,

November 10, 2006 @ 7:15 pm

It’s not what you think it is. In landlord/tenant court in NYC you must fill out a non-military affidavit in any case for non-payment (left over from WWII) it’s a artifact from that time and this rider simply tries to address that in advance.
It has absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with discriminating against members of the military for political reasons.

jon p said,

November 10, 2006 @ 7:49 pm

We use a version of that rider that is quite common (many of the larger managing agents use same)– it does -not- state “…wouldn’t join the military” (nor do I believe this one did)– the person just was reacting to what they _thought_ was a political thing. It’s nothing of the sort.

As far as what holds up in court, 80% of what’s in the lease doesn’t hold up in NYC L&T court, so this is no different– just an attempt to not get hung up on the non-Mil affidavit.

frustrated renter said,

November 12, 2006 @ 11:20 pm

>

Am I the only one who has absolutely HAD IT up to HERE with landlords and “managing agents” inserting unethical clauses that skirt the line of legality (i.e. the clause at issue here, and security deposits/rent deposits beyond one month in rent stabilized apartments) and arguing to us tenants that “this is standard” and “oh sure the larger agents normally use this” as if the fact that oh a BUNCH of large landlords want to screw the socks off tenants - well, sure than this bull**** contract clause should be fine. If there is one reason I went to LAW SCHOOL it’s to see bad logic like this - i.e. if the larger corporations want to act like bad citizens it’s okay - and say NO WAY. Jon P and all the rest of his landlord cronie scum can take the same end of my stick. But if we ALL agree to screw them - it’s STANDARD - this should be fine with him yes? Afterall, if we *commonly* do so, it’s acceptable isn’t it?