Hudson View Properties v. Weiss, 59 N.Y.2d 733 (1983)
A lease provision restricting occupancy to the tenant and the tenant’s immediate family does not constitute discrimination based on marital status under state or city human rights laws when enforced against a tenant cohabitating with a non-family member.
Summary
In this holdover proceeding, a landlord sought to evict a tenant from a rent-controlled apartment for violating a lease provision that limited occupancy to the tenant and their immediate family. The tenant argued that enforcing this provision discriminated against her based on marital status, as she was cohabitating with a man. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the landlord’s action did not constitute discrimination under state or city human rights laws because the restriction applied regardless of marital status and focused on the relationship between the occupants, not the tenant’s marital status itself.
Facts
The petitioner landlord initiated a holdover proceeding to evict the respondent tenant from her rent-controlled apartment. The basis for eviction was that the tenant violated a substantial obligation of her tenancy. Specifically, the tenant allowed a person who was not a tenant and not a member of her “immediate family” to occupy the apartment with her. The lease contained a restrictive covenant limiting occupancy to the tenant and members of the tenant’s immediate family.
Procedural History
The landlord initiated a holdover proceeding in the Civil Court, City of New York. The tenant defended by claiming discrimination based on marital status. The lower court’s decision is not specified in the provided text. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the tenant. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstated the landlord’s petition, and remitted the case to the Civil Court for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether a landlord, by enforcing a lease provision restricting occupancy to the tenant and the tenant’s immediate family against a tenant cohabitating with a non-family member, unlawfully discriminates against the tenant on the basis of marital status in violation of the State Human Rights Law (Executive Law, § 296, subd 5, par [a]) and the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of New York, § Bl-7.0, subd 5, par [a]).
Holding
No, because the lease restriction applies regardless of the tenant’s marital status and focuses on the relationship between the occupants, not the tenant’s marital status itself. The landlord’s enforcement of the lease does not depend on whether the tenant is married or unmarried but on whether the co-occupant is part of the tenant’s immediate family.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals drew an analogy to Matter of Manhattan Pizza Hut v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 51 NY2d 506, where an antinepotism rule was found not to be discriminatory based on marital status because the disqualification was based on the relationship between the employees, not the fact of their marriage. The court reasoned that “the issue arises not because the tenant is unmarried, but because the lease restricts occupancy of her apartment, as are all apartments in the building, to the tenant and the tenant’s immediate family.”
The court emphasized that the lease restriction applied equally regardless of the tenant’s marital status. “Were the additional tenant a female unrelated to the tenant, the lease would be violated without reference to marriage. The fact that the additional tenant here involved is a man with whom the tenant has a loving relationship is simply irrelevant. The applicability of that restriction does not depend on her marital status.”
The court concluded that the landlord reserved the right to restrict occupants through the lease covenant, and the tenant agreed to this restriction. Therefore, enforcing this restriction did not constitute unlawful discrimination based on marital status under either state or city human rights laws.