From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tener v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 13, 1990
159 A.D.2d 270 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 13, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley L. Sklar, J.).


Petitioner seeks to annul respondent's determination that the intervenor tenant was protected by the rent control laws because she has been in continuous occupancy of the subject apartment since her birth in 1937. The tenant of record, intervenor's mother, vacated the apartment to reside in a nursing home. Intervenor's uncontroverted statement was that for a period of only six months to one year she stayed with a friend but, even during such period, she returned regularly to the apartment and left most of her personal property there. Intervenor also provided documentary evidence of her residency. Respondent found that petitioner was unable to rebut the intervenor's statements except by allegations that were conclusory or based on hearsay. The Supreme Court concluded that the administrative ruling was neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable. We agree.

Vacancy decontrol of a rent-controlled apartment occurs when the tenant of record voluntarily vacates the unit ( 9 NYCRR 2200.2 [f] [17]). However, pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2204.6 (d), the surviving spouse or family member of a deceased tenant who has continuously lived with the tenant is entitled to remain in possession of the apartment as a rent-controlled tenant. The protection of this section has been extended to family members living with a tenant who voluntarily vacated the unit (Matter of Herzog v Joy, 74 A.D.2d 372, affd 53 N.Y.2d 821). The family member must establish a contemporaneous occupancy with the named tenant and some indication of permanence or continuity (829 Seventh Ave. Co. v Reider, 67 N.Y.2d 930). Such evidence was presented here. This court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency; it is our function merely to ascertain whether there was a rational basis for the determination and that it was not arbitrary or capricious (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Tener v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 13, 1990
159 A.D.2d 270 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Tener v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PHILIP TENER, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 13, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 270 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 271

Citing Cases

W 36th Villa LLC v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

A court's function in an Article 78 proceeding is to determine, upon the proof before the administrative…

Riverside Tenants Ass'n v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous.

A court's function in an Article 78 proceeding is to determine, upon the proof before the administrative…