Faye Dunaway Leaves Rent Stabilized UES Place, Gets Dissed

dunaway e1322060791860 Faye Dunaway Leaves Rent Stabilized UES Place, Gets Dissed

Faye Dunaway (Photo from Patrick McMullan)

Some people just have it all. Celebrity, a loyal fan following, a sweet apartment—you know the drill. After developments in her New York living situation, however, it seems that Faye Dunaway has none of these things. At least according to a lawyer representing her landlord.

Ms. Dunaway agreed earlier this week to vacate her rent stabilized apartment, The Times reports. She had been renting the Upper East Side pad since 1994, most recently paying $1,040 per month for her one-bedroom walk-up. Over the summer, however, her landlord filed suit claiming that as New York was not the actresses primary residence Ms. Dunaway was not entitled to rent stabilized prices.

A lawyer for Ms. Dunaway’s landlord, Craig Charie, dished out a major diss after she agreed to move out, claiming that her faded stardust would do little to raise the apartment’s value.

Mr. Charie said on Tuesday that she had not left anything there, adding that it was unlikely that brokers would mention to potential renters that Ms. Dunaway had lived in the apartment. He said the age group in the market for such an apartment was unlikely to know who Ms. Dunaway is.

“The moniker of her name won’t make it more remarkable for the audience of who is going to rent it,” Mr. Charie said. “If Britney Spears rented it, it would fly off the market.”

Zing! That was below the belt, Mr. Charie! While perhaps no ScarJo, Ms. Dunaway, to be fair, should probably have coughed up the full price for the place. Royalties from Chinatown not paying like they used to?



  1. Ronald Gordon says:

    This story is pointless and mean. And boring.

    1. Anonymous says:

      A pretty apt description of The Observer (and most blogs) these days.

  2. Debbie K. says:

    Everyone, regardless of income or celebrity status LOVES having an apartment in Manhattan BELOW market rates.  They can’t help it – – it’s like a secret status symbol that they can hold onto something so “valuable”.  Mandy Patinkin was guilty of same – 28 years with 2 combined rent stabilized apartments.  Dunaway’s was a walk up – PUHLEEZ.  It’s not like she had a fabulous place in a doorman building + amenities.  The point is she could have and should have relinquished it years ago.

    1. H. C. says:

      try doing a little math. she rented it in 1994. She was already a celebrity then with many accolades under her belt. they knew who she was when she rented it. If what you’re saying is as that being a celebrity (or due to her income) she should not have been permitted to rent a rent controlled apartment, that’s a different story. But she rented it as a celebrity, she, if anything, has been a bit out of the limelight over the last couple of years. So either she should not have been permitted to rent it in the first place, or there’s no problem with her staying as long as she wants. And while it’s true everyone loves a bargain, they rented it to a celebrity without imposing a time limit – kicking her out now is not that much different than kicking anyone else out except she’s probably less likely to be homeless and it’s probably a little easier for her to afford a lawyer… probably.

      1. Sandykoufax5 says:

        We need strong rent protections to protect the working and middle class.  This is a stupid article showing how  one celebrity person got a good deal.  It is not representative of anything.

        It is a landlord puff piece.