When an landlord of a regulated building seeks to recover a rent-stabilized unit for "owner's use," s/he needs to demonstrate a good-faith intention to occupy the space for actual living purposes. And, under current law, if that standard is met to a court's satisfaction, there are no limits on the number of units that may be recovered for that purpose.
With increasing frequency, owners are using this statutory ground to remove stabilized tenants from their buildings. In a recent case, Robert Malta sought to recover four rent-stabilized apartments. Although the tenants challenged Malta's attempt to evict half of the structure's occupants, their arguments fell upon deaf ears. As the New York County Civil Court noted in Malta v. Brown , if our political leaders sought to limit the number of units that could be recaptured for personal-use purposes, then our Legislature -- which is empowered to take action -- should do so. As the Civil Court observed:
The Legislature has not created a limit on the number of apartments an owner may recover for personal or family use. The Legislature has, however, created limitations in other situations. The law limits the number of apartments an owner may recover for a business purpose. An owner who plans to recover the premises for a business purpose may recover "any or all housing accommodations." (RSC section 2524.5 [a] [1] [i].) The law also limits the number of apartments an owner may recover if governmental agencies have imposed code violations on the premises and the cost of removing the violations would equal or exceed the value of the premises. In that event an owner may recover "any or all housing accommodations." (RSC section 2524.5 [a] [1] [ii].)
The Legislature has also created limitations on who may recover a housing accommodation and which classes of tenants may not be easily evicted. Before 1983, multiple owners had the right to regain property for personal use. The law now restricts to only one owner the right to take property for personal use. (Id. section 2524.4 [a] [3].) Since 1983, the Legislature has also protected tenants over the age of 62 and disabled tenants. (RSC section 2524.4 [a] [2].) These tenants may not be evicted unless the owner "offers to provide and, if requested, provides an equivalent or superior housing accommodation at the same or lower regulated rent in a closely proximate area." (Id.) These examples illustrate how the Legislature has sought to protect tenants in various situations. The Legislature has yet to cap, however, the number of apartments an owner may recover for personal or family use.
Until the Legislature limits the number of apartments or amount of space an owner may recover for personal or family use, this court must follow the law as it exists today.
Of course, that begs the question what can an owner do with the space, once recaptured?
Other than retaining the unit for a period of at least three years (prior to remarketing the apartment for rent), the use parameters have been quite liberally construed and applied.
While Malta purportedly sought two units for his minor son, Michael, and Amber Debord, his son's mother, and to convert another two into a duplex apartment for his brother, appellate decisions have afforded owners considerable leeway as to what they could do with a unit once recaptured. By way of example, in Spivak v. Abrahamson , the Appellate Term, First Department, sanctioned the recovery of a regulated apartment for use as a "library and study." As the court noted in its decision:
The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the trial court's determination that landlords genuinely intend to occupy the subject apartment as part of an overall, documented plan to expand their apartment, which is adjacent to the subject apartment, to add a library and study area for their children. We find no basis to disturb the trial court's fact-based credibility determination on the issue of good faith ....
So you see, kids, there are some benefits to being a book worm.
For a copy of the Civil Court's decision, please use this link: Malta v. Brown
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Spivak v. Abrahamson