No Pass-On Rights for Mitchell-Lama Occupants Who Claimed They Paid Rent

February 27, 2017

LVT Number: #27538

Landlord sued to evict occupants from Mitchell-Lama apartment after HPD determined that the occupants didn’t have succession rights. The court ruled for landlord. Occupants appealed and lost. Occupants claimed that their payment to landlord of use and occupancy gave them tenancy rights, and the claim was improperly raised for the first time on a renewal motion. Occupants also didn’t show that rent had been accepted from them in the window period prior to commencement of the eviction proceeding.

Landlord sued to evict occupants from Mitchell-Lama apartment after HPD determined that the occupants didn’t have succession rights. The court ruled for landlord. Occupants appealed and lost. Occupants claimed that their payment to landlord of use and occupancy gave them tenancy rights, and the claim was improperly raised for the first time on a renewal motion. Occupants also didn’t show that rent had been accepted from them in the window period prior to commencement of the eviction proceeding. They also had agreed in court to pay use and occupancy while their Article 78 appeal of HPD’s decision--which they lost--was pending. Mitchell-Lama regulations also stated that acceptance of rent from or on behalf of an illegal occupant won’t be deemed to create any right of tenancy. 

 

 
Cadman Towers, Inc. v. Kaplan: 2017 NY Slip Op 50159(U), 2017 WL 488207 (App. T. 2 Dept.; 1/25/17; Pesce, PJ, Solomon, Elliot, JJ)

Topics

More like this