Even though you may not be a member of a regulated tenant's "family" (as defined by the regulations), state law currently allows you to assert a "succession claim" to a rent-stabilized or rent-controlled unit should a protected tenant die or vacate the unit.*
In order to remain as a protected tenant in your own right, you will usually be required to demonstrate that:
- you had an "emotional and financial commitment and interdependence" with the tenant-of-record;
- you lived in the unit with that tenant for a two-year period** preceding that individual's death or permanent departure; and
- the unit comprised your primary residence (and that of the tenant's) during that time period.
In 360 W. 55th St. L.P. v. Anvar, the Appellate Term, First Department, examined when this occupancy "window" is triggered.
Although the claimant demonstrated he had a six-year "spousal-type" relationship with the tenant (starting in May 1995), the couple reportedly parted ways in 2001, with the tenant leaving the unit for significant chunks of time, and ultimately relocating to California. In an interesting twist, it was not until March 2004 that the tenant prepared a letter which confirmed "'that she was relinquish[ing]'" and "'surrender[ing] all rights' to the apartment."
While the New York County Housing Court found in the former boyfriend's favor, on appeal, the Appellate Term reversed. Using the 2004 surrender letter as the "triggering event," the appellate court concluded that the remaining occupant had not demonstrated that he had maintained a "family-type relationship" with the tenant of record "for the two-year period immediately preceding the tenant's permanent vacatur ...." [Emphasis added]
We believe the evidence supported the Housing Court's finding that the tenant "abandoned" the apartment in 2001 and that the boyfriend's succession entitlement had "vested" by that time (since the couple had resided in common as a "family unit" for a six-year period preceding their "mutual separation"). Yet, the appellate court allowed a single piece of evidence--a simple letter--to cloud its judgment.
A trial judge arrives at credibility determinations and issues findings of fact after observing (first-hand) the demeanor and comportment of the witnesses. Since such assessments are usually accorded considerable deference on appeal, we're at a loss to understand why the Appellate Term felt compelled to deviate from that established standard in this particular instance.
Does this case stand for the proposition that when love is lost, so too goes a succession claim?
(Now how romantic is that?)
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in 360 W. 55th St. L.P. v. Anvar, please click the following link: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_26313.htm
--------------------------
* The regulations authorize the following family members to stake a succession claim: the tenant's spouse, children, stepchildren, parents, stepparents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, sons-in-law or daughters-in-law.
** When the person claiming the succession right is a senior citizen--62 years of age or older--or a "disabled" individual, the occupancy timeframe is reduced to one year.
For our other posts on "succession," please use the following link: http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/search/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=4&search=succession