Woman's Close Relationship with Tenants Not Enough for Pass-On Rights

Landlord Southbridge Towers denied occupant’s request for a renewal lease to tenants’ Mitchell-Lama apartment after tenants moved out. Occupant appealed to the DHCR. She claimed that she had an emotional and financial relationship with tenants since 1975, that she moved in with them in 1996, and that tenants moved out of the apartment in 1998. She also argued that landlord waived its right to evict her by taking seven years to respond to her request for a renewal lease. The DHCR ruled against occupant. She appealed, claiming that the DHCR’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable.

The court ruled against occupant, finding that the DHCR’s decision was reasonable and supported by the record. Although occupant had a close relationship with tenants, she didn’t prove she had a family-type relationship with them. Occupant and her family moved into another apartment in the building in 1975. Occupant got married and moved away in 1987. She returned to live with tenants in 1996, so that she could care for her grandmother, who lived nearby, and for one of the ailing tenants. Occupant had a close relationship with tenants, but this wasn’t enough. There was no proof that she and tenants intermingled finances, formalized any legal obligations, held themselves out as family members, or performed any family functions together. After occupant moved in, tenants in fact spent more time at their second Florida apartment, where they finally moved to in 1998. The fact that landlord and the DHCR took years to respond to the succession request didn’t matter, since the DHCR was a government agency and the Mitchell-Lama law must be strictly applied.

Chawalko v. DHCR: NYLJ, 4/1/09, p. 30, col. 1 (Sup. Ct. NY; Diamond, J)