Glenbriar Co. v. Lipsman, 5 N.Y.3d 388 (2005)

In rent stabilization cases, a landlord seeking to evict a tenant for not using the premises as a primary residence bears the burden of proof, and appellate courts are bound by affirmed findings of fact supported by the record.

Summary

The landlord, Glenbriar Co., sought to evict the Lipsmans from their rent-stabilized apartment, arguing they didn’t use it as their primary residence because they owned a home in Florida where Mr. Lipsman claimed residency for tax purposes. The Civil Court ruled in favor of the landlord, but the Appellate Term reversed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the reversal. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that it was bound by the affirmed finding of fact that the landlord failed to prove the apartment was not Mrs. Lipsman’s primary residence. This case illustrates the difficulty landlords face in challenging primary residency when tenants maintain a presence and ties to the rent-stabilized apartment, even while spending significant time elsewhere.

Facts

The Lipsmans moved into a Bronx apartment in 1959, which became rent-stabilized in 1971. In 1984, the building became a cooperative, but the Lipsmans remained as rent-stabilized tenants. In 1995, they purchased an apartment in Florida. The landlord sought to evict the Lipsmans, claiming the New York apartment was not their primary residence, citing Mr. Lipsman’s Florida driver’s license, tax returns filed from Florida, and homestead exemption claims in Florida. Mrs. Lipsman, however, maintained bank accounts, family possessions, and her voting residence in New York, spending at least 183 days a year there. The apartment was never sublet. Mr. Lipsman claimed Florida residency due to emphysema.

Procedural History

The landlord initiated a holdover proceeding in Civil Court, which ruled in favor of the landlord. The Appellate Term reversed, finding the landlord had not proven the apartment was not the Lipsmans’ primary residence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Appellate Term’s order. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the landlord presented sufficient evidence to prove that the tenants were not using the rent-stabilized apartment as their primary residence, thus justifying eviction under the Rent Stabilization Code.

Holding

No, because the Appellate Division affirmed the Appellate Term’s finding of fact that the landlord failed to meet its burden of showing that New York was not Mrs. Lipsman’s primary residence, and the Court of Appeals is bound by affirmed findings of fact supported by the record.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized its limited scope of review, noting it is a law court and ordinarily does not review facts, except in limited circumstances. Since the Appellate Division affirmed the Appellate Term’s reversal of the Civil Court, there were affirmed findings of fact that the landlord failed to meet its burden. The court acknowledged the Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR 2524.4 [c]) allows a landlord to recover possession if the premises is not used as the tenant’s primary residence. The landlord bears the burden of showing this by a preponderance of the evidence, which can include tax returns, driver’s licenses, voting residences, and subletting (Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.6 [u]). However, the tenant can rebut this evidence by showing a substantial physical nexus to the apartment (Draper v Georgia Props., 94 NY2d 809, 811 [1999]). The court noted “no issue is presented to us as to the inferences or legal implications that might follow from these facts…On this record, we are bound by the finding below, which requires an affirmance of the Appellate Division’s order.” Judge Rosenblatt’s concurrence highlighted the potential for abuse when spouses claim separate primary residences to take advantage of benefits in different jurisdictions, such as Florida’s homestead exemption and New York City’s rent stabilization laws.