Mitchell-Lama Tenant Who No Longer Lived in Unit as Primary Residence Can't Buy It as Insider

An affordable housing tenant and his daughter sued landlord in connection with a cooperative conversion plan offered by landlord. Their building had been withdrawn from the Mitchell-Lama program in 2018 and became subject to a new affordability plan that provided that each "bona fide Mitchell Lama tenant" was entitled to purchase their apartments at an insider price during an "exclusive period" that expired on July 19. 2021. Tenant received a purchase agreement from landlord in September 2019. He returned the agreement in February 2020, signed by both himself and his daughter. In March 2020, landlord advised tenant that the signed agreement was incomplete/void because he improperly added the daughter as a tenant. Landlord sent tenant another blank lease for tenant's signature only, but tenant never responded to this second notice before the exclusive period expired.

Tenant and his daughter asked the court to: (a) declare that one or both of them was entitled ot purchase their apartment as insiders; (b) issue an injunction directing landlord to recognize and give full force and effect to the purchase agreement; and (c) declare that landlord engaged in a systematic policy in violation of NY State law by systematically refusing to recognize purchase agreements.

The court ruled against tenant and his daughter. Landlord showed that neither were bona fide Mitchell-Lama tenants entitled to enter an insider's purchase agreement. The daughter had advised landlord that tenant lived in Uganda and not in the apartment, and that she lived in the apartment alone. The daughter also told landlord that tenant wouldn't buy the apartment solely in his own name.  So the tenant of record wasn't in actual possession and occupancy of the apartment as his primary residence continuously for the prior 12 months. And the daughter, who may otherwise have had succession rights, didn't live in the apartment with tenant as required to be considered a bona fide Mitchell-Lama tenant. Also, because tenant altered the proposed purchase agreement by adding the daughter's signature, it was properly considered void by landlord.

Ntiru v. WV Preserv. Partners, LLC: Index No. 158358/2021, 2025 NY Slip Op 30662(U)(Sup. Ct. NY; 2/26/25; Goetz, J)