Landlord-Tenant—Starrett City Permitted to Reject “Living In Communities” (LINC) Program Tenant—LINC Lease Provisions Violate Urstadt Law

[N]o local law…shall hereafter provide for the regulation and control of residential rents and eviction in respect of any housing accommodations which are (1) presently exempt from such regulation and control or (2) hereafter decontrolled either by operation of law or by a city housing rent agency, by order or otherwise. No housing accommodations presently subject to regulation and control pursuant to local laws…adopted or amended under authority of this subdivision shall hereafter be by local law…or by rule or regulation which has not been theretofore approved by the state commissioner of housing and community renewal subjected to more stringent or restrictive provisions of regulation and control than those presently in effect.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law,…a city having a population of one million or more shall not, either through its local legislative body or otherwise, adopt or amend local laws…with respect to the regulation and control of residential rents and eviction, including but not limited to provision for the establishment and adjustment of rents [or] the regulation of evictions….

Alston v. Starrett City Inc., App. Div., 1st Dep't, Case Number: 452674/15, decided April 5, 2018. Opinion by Sweeny, J.P. Manzanet-Daniels, Webber, Kahn, Moulton, JJ. All concur.

Landlord-Tenant—Holdover Proceeding—Alleged Failure to Provide Access On Two Dates, More Than Seven Months Apart—Landlord Denied Right to Terminate Tenant's Occupancy-Predicate Notice Failed to State, Inter Alia, What Repairs Were To Be Completed—Evidence Failed to Establish That Repairs Were “Urgently Needed” Or Impacted Other Tenants—Alleged Violation Was De Minimis

failure to timely submit household income and composition;

extended absence from or abandonment of the unit;

fraud;

nonpayment of rent;

repeated minor violations that: disrupt the livability of the property; adversely affect the health or safety of any person, or the right of any tenant to the peaceful enjoyment of the property; or have an adverse financial effect on the property; or failure to disclose and provide verification of Social Security Numbers.

Brookdale Vill. Hous. Corp. v. Garcia, Civ. Ct., Queens Co., Index No. 79806/17, decided April 30, 2018, Kullas, J.

Land Use—NYC Board of Standards and Appeals Decision Denying A Variance Annulled—The BSA Failed to Address the Five Relevant Factors

In considering an application for area variances, a zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the petitioner against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood…if the area variances are granted. In particular, a zoning board must consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to a nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance….