Landlord Didn't Prove Good Faith Intent to Occupy Apartment

(Decision submitted by David S. Hershey-Webb of the Manhattan law firm of Himmelstein, McConell, Gribben, Donoghue & Josehp, attorneys for the tenants.)
Facts: Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenants for owner occupancy. At trial, tenants argued that landlord didn't prove his good faith intent to occupy the apartment. Landlord owned the building with his wife and son. He lived on Long Island with his wife and two children when he started the court case. After starting the case, landlord sold the house and moved into the third-floor apartment of the building. Then there was a fire in the building, and landlord's wife and children relocated to a summer house in Florida. Landlord operated businesses in Long Island, New Jersey, and Brooklyn. He said his wife attended school in New York, his parents lived nearby, and he would have a shorter commute from the New York apartment. He also said that living in tenants' second-floor apartment would mean fewer steps to climb.
Court: Landlord loses. Landlord previously sued to evict two other tenants in another building, claiming he wanted the apartments for his parents. But after tenants agreed to move out, landlord combined their apartments and rented the new apartment for $6,000 per month. His parents never moved in. Landlord bought the Long Island house in October 2001 but suddenly wanted to move to Manhattan in April 2002 when he contracted to buy tenants' building. Landlord's wife also had never seen tenants' apartment. And while landlord wasn't required to take a deregulated apartment in his building, he sought only rent-stabilized apartments in various owner-occupancy proceedings. Landlord didn't prove good faith. Despite a desire to live in Manhattan and the financial means to buy any type of residence, landlord sought apartments to move into only when he bought buildings.

Reznik v. Muir: Index No. 50845/04 (12/5/06) (Civ. Ct. NY; Lansden, J)