The Real Deal New York

Tenants accuse Gluck’s Stellar Management of harassment

Landlord allegedly using illegal tactics to gets residents out of rent-stabilized apartments

August 14, 2014 12:30PM

  • Print
50 West 93rd Street and Laurence Gluck

50 West 93rd Street and Laurence Gluck

Rent-stabilized tenants at two Upper West Side buildings are alleging that they are being harassed by their landlord, the Laurence Gluck-lead Stellar Management.

Roughly 20 tenants at 50 and 70 West 93rd Street say that they have received notices and phone calls asking them to move out. If the accusations are true, such requests would be a violation of the tenants’ rent-stabilized leases.

Other tenants told the Daily News they had allegedly been offered tens of thousands of dollars to leave their apartments.

Stellar bought the two buildings in 2006. Officials criticized Stellar earlier this year after the landlord prevented rent-stabilized tenants from using the gym, rooftop and pool at a 23-story building on West End Avenue and 92nd Street. [NYDN] – Claire Moses

  • no-permits

    offering a buyout is not a violation of RS leases.

    • Larry

      Refusing to accept rent and then bringing bogus lawsuits–and then offering a buy-out is harassment.

      • no-permits

        the article does not say that.

        • Larry

          You are right, a buy-out alone or a lawsuit for good cause is not harassment. BUT you may want to read the Daily news piece or talk with the tenants, as I have as a neighbor to get the full picture. There has indeed been false accusations and frivolous lawsuits initiated and dropped by landlord–as a pressure tactic to accompany the buy-out “offer”. If you had false accusations made against you which threatened your home–you might feel harassed–while landlord thinks it’s nothing personal, just business.

  • David Brown

    Assumes they have valid rent stabilized leases that they themselves have not violated.

    • Larry

      No, the landlord has assumed that all are in violation of their leases and is going on a fishing expedition to see what sticks. Landlord version of profiling and “stop and frisk”.

  • http://batman-news.com Tanka

    Gluck is a Hazzah ! he is a greedy dog

    • richjew

      He may or may not be greedy. Why is that relevant?

  • Edward Johnson

    filing a lawsuit and offering buyouts are not harassment -

    • Larry

      Please read my reply to Woody Allen above. peace!

      • Edward Johnson

        It is SO EASY to prove that I live in my apartment. It would take me 3 emails tops to convince a landlord he’s got it wrong and that he’s wasting his time. The idea that landlords can’t investigate for cheaters and ask probing questions is a farce. If I were greedy enough to live in a stabilized apartment (while my neighbors paid 3x more than I did to help subsidize me) then I would understand that each time the building gets sold I’d need to show the obvious evidence to the new owner that I live there. It’s part of being a stabilized tenant.

        • Monica McLaughlin

          Why should you have to prove anything? Many tenants become very frightened when challenged by landlords. They do not know their rights which include the right not to fear groundless eviction. Landlords are entitled to investigate for cheaters — but only in ways that do not harass legal tenants. Many landlords hire private investigators or do the legwork themselves and there is nothing wrong with this; however, for a landlord to accuse all tenants in an attempt the shake out the cheats is an example of tenant harassment.

  • highschoolsearch

    Gluck did the same thing at our building! I just don’t understand why this guy Gluck is not sitting in jail? He harassed hundreds in our building and got away with it, so I guess he figures he can do this and there are no consequences. Gluck is a menace to society. Put him in jail!

  • richjew

    Hope he gets everyone of those rent stabilized parasites out of they’re apartments.

    • Larry

      You may be rich but you can’t write, its “their” apartments, not the abbreviation of “they are”. And your whole premise is wrong, it’s the landlords who are the parasites and the tenants who generate the income. But some parasites (not all) can’t quite get enough and they suck their hosts dry. Sounds like you fit the bill–how rich do you need to be or do you like being a bitter soul.

      • richjew

        - How bitter do you have to be to correct some anonymous persons typos?

        - How bitter do you have to be to think that tenants paying below market rents to a landlord makes the landlord a parasite?

        - How bitter do you have to be to think that tenants are hosts?

        You ask: “How rich do you have to be? ” I dont know but much richer than I currently am.

        • Monica McLaughlin

          The owners buy buildings that contain rent stabilized tenants. These buildings are profitable otherwise they would not buy them.

          • J

            Lets be real Monica, you are an attorney just trying to demonstrate your anti landlord beliefs?

          • Monica McLaughlin

            When a person or organization buys an apartment building they look at the income and expenses (operating costs) of that building. If they see they can make money either by renting out apartments or by flipping the property, that person or organization makes a business decision to buy the property. This is how it works. The landlords do make money on rent stabilized buildings which is why they buy them. If a landlord of a rent stabilized building finds they cannot make money, they do have recourse. They can file for an increase with the City. Some landlords, realizing they can increase profits by high tenant turnover, resort to tenant harassment to increase profits.

          • Edward Johnson

            It is not true that landlords who lose money can file for a hardship – sure the law allows for it but the City NEVER grants it. That’s why buildings go into foreclosure. If the City were granting this hardship increase then how could any ever lose their buildings?
            Landlords bought their buildings with a certain set of rules in place. Now the rules are VERY different and MUCH more anti-landlord. To expect landlords to just sit back and “take it” is foolish. The City admits landlord expenses went up almost 6% last year but they are only giving 1% increases. That’s against the law, but they do it anyway. With 1% increases it’s reasonable to expect that landlords will get ever more vigilant in finding illegal sub letters. 1% increases come at a cost.

          • Monica McLaughlin

            Can you provide specific examples of building owners losing buildings after apply for hardship and being denied? Or is it something you believe must be happening although you do not know of any specific instances? I ask because these buildings are very expensive and most are bought by big corporations with very deep pockets.

            Owners of buildings and businesses lose them for a variety of reasons one of which is that they take the money out of the building / business and use it elsewhere. They do not reinvest in the building / business and eventually they drive the building / business into the ground.

            What rules in particular are very different and much more anti-landlord? Rent stabilization laws have been on the books since the end of WWII.

            There is no justification for landlords to harass tenants ever. Yes, they are entitled to do investigations of suspected illegal sub-tenants, but these investigations cannot involve tenant harassment. Many landlords hire private investigators to do this. If a lease holder is living elsewhere this is not that difficult to prove without harassment of legal tenants.

          • Edward Johnson

            What rules are different??? Really?? How about the 11 new harassment rules. Let’s start there.
            How about the 27 new rules passed in Jan? How about the J51 rules? How about the $2,500 rule or the $200,000 rule? How about about courts that take 12 months to evict a non-pay tenant.. the way the market works today is complete different than the way it worked when most of today’s landlords bought their buildings.
            The NYC housing stock has never been in better condition – yet landlords get no credit. You ever see a story about the number of HPD violations down over 40% over the last few years (despite 311 making it easier than ever to report them)?? No, because it doesn’t fit the narrative. The landlord hate in the City is toxic. Landlords don’t set prices – if they did then why would they did they reduce their rents by 25% in 2009? Rents are high in NYC because we’ve made it too difficult to build enough housing and because rent stabilization creates inefficiencies. It’s not landlord’s fault.
            Sure there are some bad eggs – the AEP program is awesome and cleaning up and forcing out the worst landlords. In a few more years fortunately there will be no need for the AEP program.
            But to crucify a guy like Gluck for going through his building looking for cheaters is ridiculous. It gets eyeballs so the media will print it but it’s just ridiculous.

          • Monica McLaughlin

            You must explain what a law is and then explain how it is that that law affects a landlords ability to make money off their rental property or else I cannot respond. Tenant protection laws did not come into being out of thin air. They were put on the books because tenants were being mistreated.

            Gluck made bad business decisions including being over leveraged. He also made much of his fortune by turning rent stabilized buildings into market buildings. This is fine so long as he does it legally which apparently he has not always done.

          • tribeca original

            Edward Johnson, Larry Gluck actually won a J51 battel with Independence Plaza and overturned the law. He is the biggest cheater of them all. Please go research this criminal.

          • highschoolsearch

            Don’t make Gluck out to be a good guy because he is not! He’s hurt way too many people. He is not simply “going through his building looking for cheaters.” He is litigating and harassing people out of their apartments so that he can oust the rent protected tenants and get market rate tenants in those apartments instead. It’s pure greed. Gluck is a little man with a Napoleon complex. He is an embarrassment to the Jewish community. Your defense of him is sickening.

  • Edward Johnson

    I find it laughable that some guy offering you $50k is somehow harassment. You understand how stupid these tenants sound right?

    • Monica McLaughlin

      $50,000 is not a lot of money to give up a rent stabilized apartment for. If you are paying $700 a month for an apartment that goes for $2700 on the open market, that $50,000 will be eaten up in 2 years. It is a pittance.

      • Edward Johnson

        it might be a “pittance” to you but not to someone else – it may be a bad financial decision to take it, it may be a good financial decision to take it – but again – to call it harassment makes you look stupid.

      • ralphpetrillo

        Exactly , for if you pay $ 2,000 more a month that is 24,000 a year . In ten years you will have lost $ 240,000. That is a fair offer.

    • ralphpetrillo

      they simple want a higher offer. Offer them $ 150,000 and they will get the deal done very fast. It is part of the process of negotiation. First offer is usually rejected,

  • highschoolsearch

    Gluck files frivolous lawsuits regularly against many many stabilized tenants in order to harass them and to try to intimidate them into moving from his buildings. The letters that we receive are always very threatening. If guys like Gluck don’t want rent stabilized tenants in the buildings they buy…then don’t buy those buildings. It’s time for the attorney general to go after Gluck and put him in jail.

  • Jill Stone

    The rules are the rules. So the politicians changed them for votes. That is regular. But the rules permit buyouts. The rules give a level of service to rest stabilized tenants and owners better deliver those services. You buy the building with these tenants and that is the deal. So do the deal. Run a clean, safe, warm building. That’s your job as an owner when you bought the property. But this does not give those same tenants rights to the pool or gum, that’s not the deal. Oh, I forgot politics and the politicians needing votes so lets give them ( the rent stabilized tenants) something not bargained for so I can get their votes. Its called the redistribution of wealth in that that additional service cost the owners money.The recent change in the rules are the same. Its called a taking by government without compensation because of the housing emergency from the mid 1940′s. Self perpetuating for the politicians. Maybe I am wrong. Please correct me someone.

  • tenant

    this man is a criminal a millionaire slumlord.

MENU

Subscribe to our email newsletters

New York Real Estate News
South Florida Real Estate News