In order to keep their regulated apartments, tenants are required to maintain these units as their "primary residence" -- defined as an "ongoing, substantial, phsyical nexus with the premises for actual living purposes as demonstrated by objective, empirical evidence."*
You would think that someone who is already fortunate enough to have a three-bedroom, below-market, rent-stabilized apartment would be content. But no. The tenant in Third Lenox Terrace Assoc. v. Francis also wanted to keep a rent-stabilized studio apartment on West 132nd Street.
The hurdle this particular tenant couldn't overcome was proving that she lived in two different places at the same time.
When the landlord brought a holdover proceeding to evict the tenant from the West 132nd Street studio on the grounds she really didn't live there, the New York County Civil Court found in the owner's favor and ordered the tenant's eviction. On appeal, the Appelate Term, First Department, affirmed. It didn't help the tenant's case that all her documents established the she really lived somewhere else.
Here's how the court assessed the testimony and trial evidence:
Tenant admitted that for the past decade she has leased a three-bedroom rent stabilized apartment elsewhere in Manhattan, where she maintains telephone, cable television and Con Edison accounts in her name, where she keeps her clothing and personal belongings, and which was listed on her tax returns and W-2 forms.
They call that "chutzpah," no?
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use the following link: Third Lenox Terrace Assoc. v. Francis
______________________
*East End Temple v. Silverman, 199 AD2d 94, 605 NYS2d 56 (1st Dept 1993).