No Succession Rights for Son of Tenant Who Wasn't Subject to Rent Control

Rent-controlled tenant's son claimed that he had succession rights to tenant's apartment and asked the DHCR for a ruling on this question. The DRA ruled against the son, who appealed and lost. The DRA found that tenant, who was the initial primary tenant of the apartment, moved out in 1972 before moving back in 1973 or 1974. Her return to the apartment didn't establish a rent-controlled tenancy. The DRA also found that the apartment wasn't subject to rent stabilization because the building contained fewer than six housing accommodations. 

The son claimed that tenant moved into the apartment in January 1970, and moved out in the summer of 1972 after a domestic violence incident resulted in her illegal eviction. She temporarily resided elsewhere, then moved back into the apartment in the summer of 1973. The son and his sister claimed that tenant's brother owned the building at the time, and she moved out because he brandished a gun at her. The brother and tenant signed a letter in 1970, written to HRA, which they claimed substituted as a lease.

In opposition, current landlord submitted a sworn statement from prior landlord (tenant's brother), who claimed that the son's brother and not the son lived in the apartment in the 1980s, and that tenant didn't continuously reside in the apartment since July 1, 1971.

The DHCR noted that a rent-controlled tenant is one who has been in continuous occupancy of an apartment since July 1, 1971. Once a rent-controlled tenant vacates, the apartment is no longer rent-controlled. Even if a tenant later returns to an apartment, the apartment doesn't revert to its rent-controlled status. Here, there was no proof that tenant was illegally evicted in 1972. The claim of a domestic incident between prior landlord and tenant wasn't sufficient to prove this. There also was no proof that landlord or prior landlord ever treated tenant as rent controlled after she moved back into the apartment.

Alvarado: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. GR220012RT (9/15/20) [4-pg. doc.]