Warring North 8th Residents, Landlord to Appear in Court Today

The residents of 172 N 8th Street in Williamsburg and landlord Jamal Alokasheh are scheduled to meet in court today, where the residents will ask that a judge appoint someone else to manage the building. They've accused Alokasheh of intentionally harming the building's foundation in an attempt to empty the rent-controlled apartments (some as low as $300 a month) so he can rent them for more. The tenants' lawyer told the Times, “He’s the only one who had access this entire time; therefore he’s the one who did this. He was the only one with the key. He’s openly made threats that he does not want them in the building."

The building was evacuated a year ago due to the unstable foundation, and tenants accused Alokasheh of stalling on renovations. When the evacuation ban was lifted, tenants had to force their way in through padlocked doors, and Alokasheh allegedly wouldn't turn on the water or electricity. But Alokasheh says he spent $100,000 on renovations, they just took so long because the building is old. He said, "We want them to live there, we want to fix it, and we are doing everything to fix it. Everything was good before they broke the locks. If there is damage in the building, maybe one of the tenants did it."

The tenants were vacated a second time just two days after they forced themselves back in, when the Department of Housing Preservation and Development discovered two cellar walls collapsed. Many also have firsthand accounts of Alokasheh attempting to squeeze them out. Tenant Anna McCusker said he told her he needed to find higher paying tenants, while Peter Pawlak said Alokasheh offered him $12,000 if he gave up his right to move back in. But Alokasheh's lawyer says there is no way he was sleazy enough to actually destroy the building. He said, "I don’t think it was purposeful. If somebody had done that, they would have to be completely out of their mind." Well, this is a New York landlord we're talking about.

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

By Jaya Saxena in News on June 30, 2010 3:56 PM

Comments [rss]

Anonymous

I used to have him as my landlord. And I was paying market rate... Definently shady things went on. I think he messed up with that building foundation.

jaycjay

"an apartment that may potentially rent for $1500 is being rented for $300"

"hipsters"

Let's do some fact-checking. How could we do that? Oh yeah, reading the article!

The $300 rent was being paid by an 80-year old woman who lived in the apartment for 48 years.

That's Weronika Korecka, definitely a classic hipster name; clearly someone who moved to the neighborhood because of the artsy scene. A hipster, no doubt, as in "in danger of breaking a hip."

There's also a 30-year old mentioned, so being under 35 or so and living in that area obviously she's a hipster. Her rent was $1300, not $300.

There's no mention of what the third person, a 50-year old Polish architect, was paying in rent.

The landlord, by the way, bought the building just over a year ago in May 2009 clearly knowing that all of these rent-controlled tenants were part of the deal.

tsol

"The $300 rent was being paid by an 80-year old woman who lived in the apartment for 48 years."

So in other words market-rate renters and taxpayers have been subsidising her lifestyle since she was 32 years old. Kind of undercuts the feel-sorry-for-granny narrative.

cutlass

Nicely played, sir.

Dr.Doctor

LOL

nicemarmot

It's funny how almost every story I read like this, I wind up with zero sympathy for the landlord OR the tenants. Sorry, but you're not entitled to a rent that won't pay the taxes and basic services to your apartment ($300). On the other hand, if you buy a building full of rent-controlled tenants, you know what you're getting into and you're getting exactly what you deserve.

JacqueMehoff

No way the LL would destroy his own building to keep legal tenants from coming back? really? guess there's a first time for everything.

tkchunc

So you're saying that getting an apartment that may potentially rent for $1500 is being rented for $300, presumably with the balance of $1200 being used on PBR and tight pants doesn't imply a sleazy tenant?

Apologies for believing that something that is valued more highly by others, except whereby those others are forbidden for paying said value, is a ridiculous concept.

REALITY CHECK

Someone who's in a rent stabilized unit for that amount would've been in that apartment at least since the early '80s.

REALITY CHECK

(I'm assuming rent *stabilized* at $300)

inoyourider

Meanwhile it was the law when the LL bought the building, so he knew that going in.

LL's are allowed to raise rent for capital improvement, so his expense ratio should be the same.

Wonder how long a person would have to have been in the apt to have a 300 rent?

Don't think the extra money is going to PBR, more like Old-Fashioned's, maybe.