§ 42-3S02

Citation: § 42-3S02
Parent Document: Reed v Tillman Final Order, No. TP-29136 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Original Source: https://ota.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ota/publication/attachments/T... ↗

Full Text

1,061 chars

, If Housing Provider intended to repossess the apartment for use by his daughter, it is unclear
whether the daughter' s occupancy in Housing Provider's absence wou ld be permissible under the
Act, which restricts such repossessions to situations in whi ch a "person with a freehold interest"
seeks to recover the unit "for the person's immediate and personal use and occupancy." There
seems to be no decision in the District of Columbia as to whether a housing provider can
repossess a rental unit for use by a member of his or her immediate family in the hOllsing
provider's absence. An old New York State trial co urt opinion interpreted similar language in
New York's then-prevailing rent control law to permit repossession for the benefit of an owner 's
" blood relations," but the rationale, based on post World War 1I rent contro l legislation, would
not necessarily be appli cab le to the District of Co lumbia Act. See Ucci v. McBriall, 77 N.Y.S.2d
190 (Westchester County Ct. 1947). - 1() -
 Case No.: RH-TP-08-29136 F_ Tenants' Claims of Retaliation

Other Sections in This Document (295)

Full Text