Very interesting verdict: A tenant paying $104 a month for a studio at the landmark (if rundown) old Windermere at 400 West 57th Street but actually sleeps in Central Park cannot be evicted. The Post reports that an appeals court ruled in Michael Tsitsires's favor:
The safe-zone is a 10 block radius of his home.The landlord, TOA Construction, said that means his "primary residence" is the streets - and he should clear out of his studio in the former Windemere building.
Civil Court Judge Gerald Lebovits agreed, and gave them the OK to give Tsitsires the bum's rush. "This court is not condemning [Tsitsires] to a life of homelessness," he ruled last year. "Whether by choice or circumstance, [he] is already homeless."
The Appellate Term reversed that decision, saying they refused to find a tenant "maintains his primary residence on a park bench."
The panel noted that Tsitsires, who gets Supplemental Security Income disability payments, had lived in the building for 35 years and keeps his "his clothing and personal belongings in the apartment and received mail there."
The 2-1 decision also found his "homeless" lifestyle is the product of deep, longstanding emotional difficulties, fueled by a panic disorder and substance abuse problems. He is so far gone, his testimony had to be taken at a hotel within his "safe zone."
For more about the history of the building, check out the Landmarks Preservation Commission's designation status report (PDF). Here's part of it:The Windermere, constructed in 1880-81, is significant as the oldest-known large apartment complex remaining in an area that was one of Manhattan’s first apartment-house districts. With its exuberant display of textured, corbelled, and polychromatic brickwork, the Windermere complex is a visually compelling, imposing, eclectic, and unified group of three buildings anchoring the southwest corner of Ninth Avenue and West 57th Street. Adding to its significance is the Windermere’s role in the history of women’s housing in New York City. In the late 1890s, in an era in which housing options for single, self-supporting women were relatively limited, the Windermere was recognized as a remarkable home for a substantial population of these so-called “New Women.” As such, it appears to have anticipated later residential projects in the city catering specifically to bachelor women. One tenant tells the Post it's not the nicest, but "at least I have heat and hot water."





I'm glad the appellate court ruled this way. Regardless if he slept there or not the original decision would have, IMO, set a bad precedent for evicting people.
too much tenant rights. its like a communist system we live in nyc. I think we should send all the bad tenants to live with all those judges who make the rulings.
and all the good tenants should stop paying slum lords.
I don't know any of this story. just rant about tenants rights in nyc.
Isn't this place one of the most haunted buildings in the City?
If it weren’t for tenants rights, this city would be dealing with a lot more homeless people then we do now.
And Manhattan, from Battery Park to Washington Heights and beyond would be populated by only rich people.
An extreme view, yes, but logical considering the nature of the housing market in NY.
I have a lot of photos and a history of the Windermere on my flickr site (I also have a then and now photo (then: 1940's) , go to: www.flickr.com/photos/edstern
also, my doorman lives there and pays about $50 a month for rent (bullshit)... Before the building was deamed a historical landmark (i think 2004) the remaining 4 tenants were all offered a sweet buyout deal of about $350,000 dollars. They declined (more bullshit).
The Owner a Japanese Business man (Tao Construction) lives in Japan and initially bought the building for a cool $4 million hoping to demolish it and sell the property to a company that would build a high-rise. Thankfully, the building is now a landmark and cannot be torn down. I'm hoping in the very near future it's bought and renovated. I believe the asking price is $35 million.
"armchair_warrior", this can hardly be shoe horned into a simple tenants rights case. I think it has more to do with the inequity of the situation.
How would you like to be evicted from your apartment after an electrical fire on the basis of "Whether by choice or circumstance, [he] is already homeless"?
Dead right, Lieutenant.
But to you and SD, I think Armchair is just kidding, screwing with us, you know, making fun of those incoherent, babbling trolling posts that show up on G'mist from time to time. So rest assured.
Happy holidays.
Alright! Score one for the homeless crazy people who bring property values down, don't contribute to society and will menace and cause detriment to anyone near them. HOlla!
And yet I still sympathize more with him than with the landlord.
If this guy manages to pay his $104 bucks every month then why should he be evicted? Wouldn't that mean every rich CEO who usually goes back to CT but keeps a condo in the city for when he works late could be evicted because there primary residence wasn't that apartment?
Rich CEO's don't have rent-controlled pied-a-terres.
Also rich CEO's aren't disgusting homeless people.
It takes two to rent. This guy pays his $104 a month so he can live in that space. That's fine. However why doesn't the owner have the right to refuse that money? If this guy is just paying month-to-month, why shouldn't the owner be allowed to take back his property?
This person obviously has a serious mental illness, yet they pander to him. Why isn't he institutionalized? How long will it be before he attacks someone with a brick or pushes someone in front of a subway?
p.s. They should tear this sh*thole down.