Residents allege landlord is trying to force them out
Five Hamilton Heights residents are suing Vantage Properties and 3489 Broadway LLC for allegedly violating the Tenant Protection Act. The tenants allege that their landlord has harassed and intimidated them in order to make them vacate their apartments so that rent can be increased.
In a lawsuit filed on Oct. 29 by Manhattan Legal Services on behalf of the residents, the plaintiffs presented a litany of alleged illegal activities by Vantage, including filing baseless court actions against the plaintiffs, charging rent that had already been paid, and bills that reflected inaccurate balances owed to the defendants.
Vantage did not comment on the specific allegations.
“When you live in an apartment under these conditions, how can you feel?” asked 66-year-old Juana Peralta, a plaintiff in the case.
The tenants suing Vantage Properties reside at this apartment building in Hamilton Heights
Peralta, who has lived in the building for more than 30 years, said she never had any problems with management until Vantage bought the building in 2007.
“I got a letter saying if I don’t pay that money, I will get sued,” said Peralta, referring to a bill she claims reflected an inaccurate rent balance. Peralta also said that the latest she has ever paid rent is the fifth of each month, adding that she pays by money order and has kept her receipts.
Peralta also said she made phone calls to request repairs, but was put on hold and then cut off. She also alleged that the building superintendent said he would fix a damaged bathroom ceiling but, as of Oct. 29 when the lawsuit was filed, had not.
The lawsuit alleges that Vantage’s failure to perform necessary repairs has caused roach and rodent infestations, mold, leaky toilets and ceilings; and damage to floors and walls.
Some plaintiffs have complained that even requesting repairs has been difficult.
According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Ana Ortiz, 57, “was told by the building’s superintendent to add her name for repairs to a list located on the first floor.” Ortiz claims that the list could never be found.
“I don’t know what kind of super they’re talking about,” said the building’s superintendent, Carlos Maisonave, in a phone interview with Northattan.com. He said he was performing repairs regularly, and in the event that he could not do them himself, contractors had been called.
Maisonave also said that he had not received any complaints from the tenants.
In the lawsuit, both Peralta and Ortiz dispute the superintendent’s claim that repair requests were properly addressed. According to Peralta, building management was ignoring her requests for a simple reason: “They want us to move out of this apartment.”
“Northern Manhattan is the last bastion of affordable housing,” said Fred Rooney, director of CUNY School of Law’s Community Legal Resource Network, a network of more than 300 CUNY graduates whose goal is to increase access to justice in under-served neighborhoods in and around New York City.
According to Rooney, it is not unusual for landlords in northern Manhattan to compel their tenants to vacate their homes in order to charge new tenants double or even triple the rent.
“Landlords will use intimidation and fear,” said Rooney. “They’ll pretty much do whatever they can to drive tenants from their apartments.”
This is not the first time Vantage has been at the center of a tenant lawsuit. Queens Legal Services Corporation (QLSC) filed a similar suit in April of last year. While the court dismissed QLSC’s claims that Vantage had violated the Consumer Protection Act, it did not dismiss QLSC’s allegations that Vantage had violated the Tenant Protection Act.
QLSC appealed and the case is ongoing.
In response to an interview request regarding Manhattan Legal Service’s lawsuit against their company, Vantage spokesman Davidson Goldin sent an e-mail to Northattan.com with the following statement: “Vantage is committed to providing the highest levels of service to its residents, and the suit is entirely without merit.”
Manhattan Legal Services is waiting for Vantage to respond to their complaint. An answer from Vantage is due on Dec. 21st.
Comments on this entry are closed.