Tenant’s Son Claims Succession Rights to Former Mitchell-Lama Apartment

Landlord sued to eject rent-stabilized tenants and tenants’ adult son, claiming that tenants no longer used the apartment as their primary residence. The court granted tenants’ request to dismiss the case without a trial. Landlord appealed, and the case was reopened. Tenants claimed that they permanently vacated the apartment in 2000 and moved to Uganda, although they occasionally returned to the apartment to visit their son. The son claimed succession rights and presented unrefuted proof that he lived in the apartment as his primary residence for all of his adult life. However, there remained disputed issues of fact regarding whether, at the time tenants moved out of the apartment, they permanently vacated the apartment or continued to use the apartment as a nonprimary residence. This issue and disputed facts directly affected the son’s right (if any) to succession rights. Tenants had signed a settlement agreement in 2001 when the building left the Mitchell-Lama program. This agreement gave tenants certain protections under the Rent Stabilization Law but required them to maintain the apartment as their primary residence. Tenants’ son was entitled to succession rights under the agreement only if tenants and the son co-occupied the apartment for at least three years before tenants permanently vacated.

Waterside Plaza Ground Lessee, LLC v. Rwambuya: 2015 NY Slip Op 06867, 2015 WL 5553298 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 9/22/15; Friedman, JP, Acosta, Richter, Gische, JJ)