No Increase for Additional Occupant Who Qualified as ‘Nontraditional' Family Member

February 1, 1996

LVT Number: 10349

Landlord asked the DHCR for a rent increase because there was an additional occupant in rent-controlled tenant's apartment who wasn't a member of tenant's immediate family. The DHCR ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Tenant had showed the DHCR that she lived with occupant as a couple for 20 years. They shared a bed, bank accounts, household expenses, vacations, and family gatherings, and otherwise held themselves out as a family unit. The DHCR even admitted that occupant was a family member under the definition applied in cases concerning pass-on rights.

Landlord asked the DHCR for a rent increase because there was an additional occupant in rent-controlled tenant's apartment who wasn't a member of tenant's immediate family. The DHCR ruled for landlord, and tenant appealed. Tenant had showed the DHCR that she lived with occupant as a couple for 20 years. They shared a bed, bank accounts, household expenses, vacations, and family gatherings, and otherwise held themselves out as a family unit. The DHCR even admitted that occupant was a family member under the definition applied in cases concerning pass-on rights. The court ruled for tenant and said that the DHCR's ruling was ''ridiculous.'' There were no legal grounds or logical reason to distinguish between an immediate family member for purposes of eviction as opposed to rent regulation.

Comparone v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 3 (1/19/96) (Sup. Ct. NY; Goodman, J)

Topics

More like this