It was a great day in landlord city when this anti-tenant verdict came down in Sept. 2012 after years of litigation and appeals. I understand Mick Jagger’s ex losing her lease because her primary residence is in London. What I don’t get , is the woulda/coulda/shoulda loot awarded to the landlord for the extra fair market money he missed out on during the multi-year legal dispute : “As part of the fine, the judge ruled that Ms. Jagger owes $246,468 for the “fair market use and occupancy” over the years she was in dispute with the landlords. They said the apartment would have gone on the open market for $8,800 a month.”( It would be a lot more now!)
Oh, and that “poor upkeep” business the WSJ writes about so dismissively, think toxic mold and the 20 million PI suit Jagger filed in 2005 that started it all. As you would expect from Murdoch men, the WSJ hates our NYC rent control laws.
Celeb Eviction Chronicles : Bianca Jagger Lose Park Avenue Rental; Must Pay $708,000 In Back Rent, Legal Fees And Fines
From an earlier Wall Street Journal, 2010….”. Jetsetter and social activist Bianca Jagger has lost her legal bid to keep her knock-down-price rental at 530 Park Avenue.
A New York state judge last week ordered Mick’s ex to pay $708,600 in back rent and other fines to her landlords. Ms. Jagger spent nearly 20 years in the two bedroom apartment—rent-stabilized at $4,600 a month. But then she complained about poor upkeep, The landlords in turn noted that Ms. Jagger, in the U.S. on a tourist visa, shouldn’t pay the lower rent since New York isn’t her “primary residence,” one of the criteria under rent control laws.
A state appeals court sided with them in 2008 and last week another court upheld the decision and said she could be evicted. As part of the fine, the judge ruled that Ms. Jagger owes $246,468 for the “fair market use and occupancy” over the years she was in dispute with the landlords. They said the apartment would have gone on the open market for $8,800 a month.”–WSJ 2010