Justice Angela Mazzarelli
Uppman lived in a “rent-controlled” Manhattan apartment. A 2006 pact with landlord Extell Belnord (New Agreement) purported to deregulate the building’s apartments, and provide tenants with a 49-year lease. Uppman—and grandson Vincent—signed the agreement, and entered into a new lease. Neither sought review of a DHCR notice that the apartment was deregulated as of Jan. 1, 2006. After Uppman moved into a nursing home in 2009, Vincent paid rent monthly. Only partly overruling supreme court’s determinations in Extell Belnord’s action, eviction and possession suit, First Department, discussing Drucker v. Mauro, held the New Agreement void as an effort to circumvent rent control. Its requirement that tenants apply for a deregulation order appeared an attempt to lend the agreement DHCR’s approval and avoid its coming undone. However, factual issues as to his use of the subject apartment as his primary residence clouded Vincent’s entitlement to succession. Among other things, he acknowledged filing tax returns in Washington D.C. and having a bank account there during the two years preceding Uppman’s vacatur. Fact issues also existed if Extell Belnord created a month-to-month tenancy by accepting Vincent’s rent payments.
