Conflicting Rulings by Court and DHCR

Landlord sued to evict rent-controlled tenant's daughter after tenant died on June 18, 2006. The daughter claimed pass-on rights to the apartment. The court ruled for landlord on Nov. 29, 2006, after a trial. Tenant had received Section 8 benefits. On her income affidavits for 2003, 2004, and 2005, tenant listed only herself as an apartment occupant. The daughter claimed that she moved into the apartment in 2000, but showed little documentation to support her claim except a bank statement dated November 2005, a Verizon bill from 2006, and a letter addressed to her from the Social Security Administration dated Aug. 29, 2006. She presented no tax returns, motor vehicle records, school transcripts, cell phone bills, credit card statements, or any other bills reflecting a presence in the apartment for two years before tenant died.

After the court ruled for landlord, the DRA issued a decision, finding that the daughter had succession rights. She had filed a complaint with the DHCR in July 2006, claiming succession rights, and landlord never filed an answer. Landlord appealed, and the DHCR ruled against landlord.

The daughter then went back and asked the court to vacate the judgment in landlord's favor, claiming that the DHCR's decision was newly discovered evidence. The court ruled against the daughter. She appealed and lost. While the appeal was pending, landlord had appealed the DHCR's decision. The court sent that case back to the DHCR, which reversed in 2008 and ruled for landlord. It also didn't matter whether the trial court knew about the DHCR proceeding, as the daughter claimed. The DHCR and the courts both have authority over succession rights claims. And tenant's daughter didn't show sufficient proof that she lived in the apartment as her primary residence with tenant for at least two years before tenant died.

Pavel v. Fischer: NYLJ, 12/24/08, p. 35, col. 5 (App. T. 2 Dept.; Pesce, PJ, Weston Patterson, Rios, JJ)