Tenants' Son Can't Get Mitchell-Lama Apartment

Tenants moved into Mitchell-Lama apartment in 1987 with their son. At the time, the son was 14, so he wasn't listed as a tenant. He left the apartment for college in the early 1990s, and there was no record of his return until 1999, when his name first appeared on the apartment's annual income report. By 2000, tenants moved out, leaving their son as the sole occupant. Landlord apparently allowed tenants' son to remain in the apartment until December 2004, when landlord sought to evict him as an unauthorized occupant. At that point, tenant's son applied for succession rights. HPD ruled against him and authorized the eviction. The son appealed HPD's decision, arguing that landlord had allowed him to stay and therefore couldn't now claim that he had no succession rights. The court and appeals court ruled for tenants' son, finding that landlord apparently consented to letting him remain in the apartment and therefore couldn't now seek eviction. Landlord again appealed. New York's highest court ruled for landlord. The Mitchell-Lama Law contains strict guidelines regarding eligibility for succession rights. Landlord must comply with the law. HPD must enforce the Mitchell-Lama Law and regulations regardless of any actions by landlord indicating that it had waived the requirements for tenants' son. Tenants' son didn't meet the eligibility requirements for succession rights to tenants' apartment and was therefore an illegal occupant.

Schorr v. HPD: NYLJ, 3/14/08, p. 28, col. 3 (Ct. App.; Kaye, CJ, Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Jones, JJ)