Former Hospital Employee-Occupant Didn't Become Subject to Rent Stabilization Upon Retirement

Tenant sought a ruling from the DHCR that he was subject to rent stabilization. The DRA ruled against tenant, finding that his occupancy was contingent upon his employment with Maimonides Medical Center (MMC) and was subject to an Occupancy Agreement. Therefore, tenant wasn't subject to rent stabilization. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that he moved into the unit in 2001, lost his eyesight in 2008, no longer worked after that for MMC, and the building was sold to a new owner in 2018. The DHCR ruled against tenant. In a similar case commenced by MMC in housing court against another employee tenant with an Occupancy Agreement, the court ruled for MMC and found that the tenant wasn't entitled to a rent-stabilized renewal lease. Also, in other cases where the occupant was a former employee of the hospital and continued his occupancy after retirement or termination, the DHCR has ruled that the occupants are not rent-stabilized tenants. In each case, the DHCR found that continued occupancy in the apartment beyond the employment with MMC didn't confer rent-stabilized status on the occupant.

Santos: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. MP210014RT (6/24/24)[2-pg. document]