New York Law Review

Tag: Renewal Lease

  • Sommer v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Bd., 59 N.Y.2d 619 (1983): Primary Residence Exception to Rent Stabilization

    Sommer v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Bd., 59 N.Y.2d 619 (1983)

    New York City lacks the power to subject apartments not occupied as primary residences to rent regulation; therefore, a landlord is not compelled to offer a renewal lease to tenants if they did not occupy the apartment as their primary residence when their last lease expired.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a landlord of a rent-stabilized apartment was required to offer a renewal lease to tenants who may not have occupied the apartment as their primary residence. The Court of Appeals held that the city lacked the authority to regulate apartments not used as primary residences. Because the right to a renewal lease stems from the Rent Stabilization Law, the landlord was not obligated to offer a renewal if the tenants did not occupy the apartment as their primary residence on the date their last lease expired. The case was remitted to determine primary residency.

    Facts

    The tenants occupied a rent-stabilized apartment. The landlord sought not to renew the lease, arguing the tenants did not use the apartment as their primary residence. The tenants’ last lease expired on September 30, 1982.

    Procedural History

    The case was initially before the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board (predecessor to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal to determine whether the apartment was occupied as the tenants’ primary residence on September 30, 1982.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the enactment of Laws of 1982 (ch 555) repealed the provision allowing a landlord of a rent-stabilized apartment not to offer a renewal lease to a tenant not occupying the apartment as his primary residence for the period of July 20, 1982 through June 30, 1983?

    Holding

    No, because New York City’s authority to enact the Rent Stabilization Law derives from State legislative enactments, which explicitly exempt apartments not occupied by tenants as their primary residence from such regulation.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that New York City’s authority to enact the Rent Stabilization Law originates from state legislation, specifically the Local Emergency Housing Rent Control Act and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974. These state laws explicitly exempt apartments not occupied by tenants as their primary residence from rent regulation. The court stated, “Thus, notwithstanding the Legislature’s apparently inadvertent repeal of the city’s Rent Stabilization Law provision authorizing the promulgation of the primary residence rule embodied in the Rent Stabilization Code, the city continuously has lacked the power to subject apartments not occupied as primary residences to rent regulation.” Since the right to a renewal lease is a feature of the Rent Stabilization Law, the city cannot force the landlord to offer a renewal lease if the tenants did not occupy the apartment as their primary residence when their last lease expired. The court emphasized that the critical date for determining primary residence was September 30, 1982, the expiration date of the last lease. The court’s holding reinforces the principle that municipalities cannot exceed the authority delegated to them by the state legislature. The decision ensures that rent stabilization regulations remain within the bounds authorized by state law, particularly concerning primary residence requirements.

  • Sullivan v. Brevard Associates, 66 N.Y.2d 489 (1985): Renewal Leases Under Rent Stabilization Law

    Sullivan v. Brevard Associates, 66 N.Y.2d 489 (1985)

    Under New York City’s Rent Stabilization Law, a landlord need only offer a renewal lease to the tenant of record and is not obligated to offer a renewal lease to a relative of the tenant who occupies the apartment with the tenant during a portion of the lease term.

    Summary

    Susan Sullivan, sister of the tenant of record Catherine Sullivan, sought a declaration that she was a tenant with the right to possess a rent-stabilized apartment after Catherine moved out. Catherine had leased the apartment from Brevard Associates. Susan moved in with Catherine, and after Catherine moved out, Susan continued to occupy the apartment and paid rent. The court held that under the Rent Stabilization Law, a landlord is only required to offer a renewal lease to the tenant of record, not to other occupants, even family members. The court distinguished rent stabilization from rent control, noting the omission of specific tenant definitions and occupant protections in the Rent Stabilization Law.

    Facts

    Catherine Sullivan rented an apartment from Brevard Associates under a lease designating her as the sole tenant. Before the lease was signed, Susan Sullivan, Catherine’s sister, moved into the apartment. Catherine began spending nights away and eventually moved out, while Susan remained in the apartment. Susan paid the rent each month with her own checks.

    Procedural History

    Brevard served Catherine with a notice to cure, alleging that Susan’s occupancy violated the lease. Susan then sued for a declaration that she was a tenant in proper possession. Special Term initially denied Susan’s motion for summary judgment. After depositions, Special Term granted Susan’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, under the New York City Rent Stabilization Law, a landlord is obligated to offer a renewal lease to a relative of the tenant of record who occupies the apartment with the tenant during a portion of the lease term but is not named in the lease.

    Holding

    No, because the Rent Stabilization Law requires a renewal lease to be offered only to the tenant of record, and Susan was not a tenant of record.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court focused on the differences between the Rent Control Law and the Rent Stabilization Law. The Rent Control Law contains a broad definition of “tenant” that includes those entitled to possession or occupancy, and it also protects family members living with the tenant from eviction even after the tenant’s death. The Rent Stabilization Law conspicuously lacks these provisions. The court emphasized that the omission of these provisions from the Rent Stabilization Law was deliberate, indicating a legislative intent to provide a less stringent form of regulation than rent control.

    The court noted that the Rent Stabilization Law protects only the primary residence of the tenant of record. Quoting Tagert v 211 E. 70th St. Co., the court stated that under the Rent Stabilization Law provisions, “only the tenant may renew a lease; family members have no such right after the tenant has vacated.”

    The court also rejected the argument that Brevard waived its right to contest Susan’s occupancy by accepting her rent checks, stating, “There is no evidence that, by simply accepting her checks, Brevard intended to relinquish a known right.” It further noted that Brevard may not have known Susan was actually occupying the apartment or that her occupancy was a substantial violation of the lease.