Rich Guy Sues to Keep $380/Month Rent on Park Ave.

courtesy TheCityReview.com

A monetarily secure hedge fund manager is suing to keep his rent on Park Avenue rock bottom. Though Ross Haberman could afford the increase (which could be as much as thirty times what he’s paying now) his lawyer says he shouldn’t have to since he was willed the apartment by his late grandpa, real-estate legend Louis Katz. But despite what the last letter said, relatives want him to pay up.

When gramps died, he left apartments in two of his deluxe buildings—530 and 737 Park Avenue—to his three kids, and set-up $300 rentals for his grandchildren. Haberman’s rent is a bit higher because when he combined two apartments on the ninth and tenth floors of 737 Park there was a $80 hike. Still it’s not a bad deal (not that much more than Lucy and Ricky Ricardo were paying actually), since according to Streeteasy, a 2,000-square-foot duplex like his rented in November for $8,500 a month. Other residents of the building were shocked to learn what he was paying. "$380? Wow, that's a deal," Richard Foxman told the Daily News. "People would go nuts for a deal like that. I could understand him suing to keep it from going up exponentially."

But some of his relatives aren’t so understanding. Many have quit their apartments, but still maintain a financial interest in the building and want the rent to be closer to market value. Haberman’s cousin and neighbor Lauren Katz proposed a resolution that said so, which led the hedge funder to file his suit claiming that the rent increase has "no legal force" and that if there's any justice in the world he should stay in his apartments "at the same rental rate."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Sabrina Jaszi in News on February 6, 2010 2:40 PM

Comments [rss]

Jesse

Lucky bugger, I hope he wins though and takes his family to the cleaners (the ones that want him to pay up)

Oxford

So long as this guy also supports govt price intervention in the businesses he runs via his fund, including the state dictating what he pays his employees and how much he sells his products for, then at least he's being ideologically consistent.

That is to say, this guy's a f--kin hypocrite.

Thespis

RTFA.

Wza

Gotta side with the rich dude on this one.

NannyState

$380 was a lot of chipped beef at Schraffts.

NycChick

Good for him! God bless his grandaddy for being so smart & savvy.

JacqueMehoff

this can't be rent stabilized or rent control, how many RS or RC apartments let you combine 2 apartments into one?

And, is this one of those NYC anecdotes where someone knows someone who pays 250 a month living in park avenue, while not really knowing their lease or ownership situation?

Stewart

His grandfather developed the building and left him the apartment for life at $300. Sorry that some people don't like it, but that's the deal, and it should be honored.

Think2wice

This is a family matter. But realistically he should have just sublet the place for $8,500, or whatever it was that his cousins did. Nothing tears extended families apart like money.

GOP

So why should he pay more exactly? He got a life estate. A life estate isn't lost because he is successful in life.

Guest

$380? are you fucking kidding me? $380?

$380??? ARE YOU REALLY FUCKING KIDDING ME???

$380??????????

ok, i need a drink.

unregistered_wiseguy

The rich are entitled to the same rights as the middle class and the working poor?! Since when?

Doesn't he know this is Obama-time?! Off with his head!

Carrots328

it's not a question of whether or not he's able to pay an increase, it's a question of if he should have to.

if i was left with a $300 per month apartment ANYWHERE and someone wanted to raise my rent (up to 30x!) you better believe i'd fight to not have that happen. if you say you wouldn't you're lying.

if he's paying his own utility bills i see nothing wrong with this. what's the problem here?

matty

you said it, not me!

Guest

somebody had to say it

pudeljung

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ...

tgg001

I'll start by saying..I'm rock bottom poor.

But the law is the law. To think this guy should have to pay more becuase it isn't "fair" is BS. Because his parents/ granparents did well and provided for him and other people's didn't is no reason to punish him.

To think that justice is to attack the wealthy is Bulshovic/Trotsky ideology.....and that didn't turn out so good. Its root is envy. Not justice.

REALITY CHECK

If you look up the history of how rent stabilization came about, and how it actually works, and the economics of it, you would see the amazing amount of irony in your comment.

tgg001

Not talking about Marxism.

Different

Thespis

Your comment might make sense if this guy fell under a rent stabilization law. He doesn't -- this has nothing to do with rent stabilization. His low rent is (apparently) a condition the owners agreed to when receiving the building from the grandfather.

If the owners received this property with the condition that this guy would receive low rent, and that condition was legally valid, then the guy is entitled to low rent. It's his grandfather's gift to him -- a life of low rent -- and we don't get to go back and decide whether we like that or not.

meechybee

When you read the full article, you might side with the guy.

His family developed and/or owned (I forget the details) the building at one point and the father set aside units for his children. The deal was that the family units would be preserved under their own contract and, I believe, the family still has a majority ownership of the building.

The only thing I would argue for is for the guy, and others in his family who have similar deals, paid their fare share of the hard costs of the building. No matter what the discount rent is, if they're not paying their share of the utilities, the rest of the tenants are paying their way. I can't imagine that who ever set up the original agreement would have a problem with that.