If you are staking a "succession" claim to a regulated apartment -- that is, you are seeking to acquire a lease to the unit in your own name, you'll first need to jump some hoops and overcome a few hurdles.
First off, not all occupants may assert a claim since the pool of eligible "family" members is limited by law.
And, if you qualify, you will be required to show that the unit was your "primary residence" -- that you lived in the apartment with the tenant-of-record for at least two years prior to that individual's death or departure. (This "contemporaneous occupancy" time-frame is reduced to one year if the person seeking to remain is disabled or 62 years of age or older.)
The outcome of these cases will typically depend on whether the person making the claim can establish primarily residing in the apartment during the relevant time period. When the documentary proof is deficient or irregular, the case will be lost.
By way of example, in Matter of Pietropolo v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development , Mr. Pietropolo sought to remain in occupancy of Mitch-Lama apartment that had belonged to his sister. When the City denied that request, Pietropolo appealed that decision to the New York County Supreme Court (by way of an Article 78 proceeding) and, eventually, to the Appellate Division, First Department, which both concluded that the agency's decision was "not affected by an error of law, and was not irrational, unreasonable, or arbitrary and capricious."
Apparently, Pietropolo's documents did not support his residency claim. His 1998 and 1999 tax returns, W-2 forms and bank statements all reflected a Dutchess County address. And, in a 1999 New York City Non-Resident Tax Return, Pietropolo represented that he neither maintained an apartment nor lived in the City for any part of that year. (Ouch!)
In yet another succession case, Slesinger v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York , Henry S. Slesinger's claim to remain also met with defeat due, in principal part, to the paucity of acceptable evidence. According to the AD, here's what was wrong with Slesinger's submissions:
Petitioner failed to submit adequate documentation to establish that he resided in the subject premises for the requisite time period, in that, inter alia: he neglected to submit an income affidavit for the year 1998; his New York State income tax returns did not show proof of filing; his voter registration and jury service notice only indicated that he had ties to New York, but did not demonstrate his primary residence was here; an affidavit from a neighbor which, while attesting to petitioner's close relationship with the prior resident, failed to state that petitioner actually resided in the apartment during the critical period; and he failed to submit financial or employment documents confirming his purported address.
So, you see, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance can be a friend.
For our other blog posts on this topic, please use these links: Mitchell-Lamas or Succession