Rent-Controlled Tenant Gets Fees in Nonprimary Residence Case

Facts: Landlord sued to evict rent-controlled tenant for nonprimary residence. The trial court ruled against landlord, and awarded tenant over $50,000 in attorney's fees. Landlord appealed. Tenant was the daughter of the original rent-controlled tenants. Landlord claimed that, since tenant was never a party to the lease signed in 1960, tenant wasn't entitled to attorney's fees under Real Property Law Section 234. The appeals courts again ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed to the Court of Appeals. Court: Landlord loses. The rent control regulations state that the ''provisions of any lease or other rental agreement shall remain in force pursuant to the terms thereof, except insofar as those provisions are inconsistent with the Rent Law or these regulations[.]'' The court ruled that under this regulation, when a lease expires and is followed by a statutory tenancy, all the terms and conditions of the expired lease continue except for those relating to the length of the lease and the amount of rent. Also, the purpose of Real Property Law Section 234 is to discourage landlords from engaging in frivolous litigation. It would defeat the purpose of the law if ''tenant'' were construed to mean only those people who'd signed the lease. The term ''tenant'' includes all statutory tenants, whether or not they signed the lease.

Duell v. Condon: NYLJ p. 25, col. 1 (2/10/95) (Ct. App. NY; Simons, J.)