Rent regulation is a function of New York City’s housing shortage, “intended to protect dwellers who could not compete in an overheated rental market, through no fault of their own.” Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 84 N.Y.2d 385, 389, 618 N.Y.S.2d 857 (1994). As further protection, rent regulatory regimes have created “succession” regulations, whereby, under appropriate circumstances, a family member or non-traditional family member of the tenant of record can remain in the apartment after the tenant of record has vacated.
One common feature of succession regulations is that the succeeding tenant must prove that he or she co-occupied the apartment with the tenant of record for a minimum period of time, and as a primary resident, before the tenant of record left for good. In Murphy v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal,1 decided on Oct. 17, 2013, the Court of Appeals, by a 4-3 margin, determined that DHCR had misinterpreted its own succession regulation with respect to the Mitchell-Lama tenant in question.
The Facts
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
