Landlord Didn't Prove Compelling Need for Apartment

Facts: Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to evict rent-controlled tenant. Tenant was a relative of, and successor to, original rent-controlled tenant and had lived in the apartment for fewer than 20 years. Landlord claimed that he needed the apartment for his adult daughter to live in. The DRA held a hearing at which landlord, his daughter, and tenant testified. Landlord's daughter claimed that even though there had been some other vacancies in the building, tenant's apartment had better lighting and was more safely located than some other apartments. The DRA ruled against landlord, and landlord appealed. DHCR: Landlord loses. Landlord didn't show a good-faith intent to occupy the apartment or an immediate and compelling necessity. At least two other apartments had become available in the building. Landlord's daughter didn't move into either of those, and landlord didn't offer to relocate tenant into either apartment.

Manolakis: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. NC120101RO (2/3/01) [4-pg. doc.]