In C* v N* & D*, LLC, the Appellate Term, First Department addressed a dispute centered around tenants' rights and constructive possession under New York's RPAPL 713(10).
The case involved petitioners RC and JS, longtime rent-stabilized tenants of Room 3** in an SRO building located on 11th Avenue, Manhattan. Years prior to the dispute, they had temporarily relocated from their unit to apartments on West **rd Street. This move was not voluntary in the usual sense—it was governed by formal written agreements with the building’s net lessee, anticipating a planned gut renovation of the property.
However, the renovation never materialized, and before the net lessee surrendered the building to the owner, N* & D*, LLC, the managing agent, reinstated the petitioners’ possessory rights. He returned the keys, told them they could reclaim the apartment, and even stated they were “effectively restored” to possession. Following this, the petitioners engaged in multiple activities indicating their reassertion of possession—they visited regularly, stored belongings, received mail, and placed their names on the mailbox.
Yet, when they attempted to move back in full, the building owner barred them from entry and threatened arrest—actions that triggered an illegal lockout proceeding under RPAPL 713(10).
The New York County Civil Court ultimately found in favor of the tenants, and the Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed the decision. Crucially, the appellate court emphasized that the occupants retained "constructive possession" of the apartment and had neither abandoned nor surrendered their rights.
Of relevance, the AT1 deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments—a standard approach in appellate review. It also clarified that the tenants’ signing of stabilized leases for their relocation apartments did not negate their original leasehold interests. These actions were required under the relocation agreements and did not amount to surrender or waiver.
Ultimately, this case reinforces the protective framework of RPAPL 713(10), affirming that tenants—particularly those under rent stabilization—cannot be removed from possession without due legal process, even if they've been temporarily relocated. It sends a clear message to property owners and developers that tenants’ rights endure beyond physical absence, especially when their possession has been explicitly reaffirmed. The court’s ruling stands as a strong statement on the importance of recognizing constructive possession and honoring the legal promises made to tenants, even in the face of abandoned development plans.
Bottom line: a temporary relocation ≠ permanent surrender. (Nice try, though.)
# # #
DECISION