Landlord Didn't Show Immediate and Compelling Need to Recover Apartment for Super's Use

Facts: Eastchester landlord applied to the DHCR for permission not to renew tenant's lease and to proceed with an eviction. Landlord claimed he needed tenant's basement apartment to house a building superintendent. The DRA ruled against landlord. The DRA stated that landlord must show good faith and an immediate and compelling need to recover the apartment. The DRA found that past supers had lived in nonbasement apartments, that the super in question was only a part-time employee, and that there were other vacant two-bedroom apartments in the building. The DRA ruled that landlord didn't show a compelling necessity to recover tenant's apartment. Landlord appealed, claiming that the law didn't require him to prove compelling necessity. DHCR: Landlord loses. The tenant protection regulations that are applied outside New York City require landlord to get the DHCR's permission to evict tenant. The eviction can't be inconsistent with the purposes of the ETPA. The courts have long upheld the DHCR's requirement that landlord show an immediate and compelling necessity to evict a tenant from a rent-controlled apartment for the purpose of housing a resident super. So, it is equally valid under the ETPA to make landlord show immediate and compelling necessity. The stated purpose of the ETPA is "to prevent uncertainty, hardship and dislocation.''

New Property Associates: DHCR Adm. Rev. Dckt. No. HD 910057-RO (1/7/94) [5-page document]