Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)

Citation: Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)
Parent Document: Sapp v. Clark Wilson, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04184 (2022)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2022-06-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6620002/sapp-v-clark-wilson-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,251 chars

"What defines the proprietary relationship between the parties is not its characterization or the technical language used in the instrument, but rather the manifest intention of the parties" (American Jewish Theatre v Roundabout Theatre Co., 203 AD2d 155, 156). "Whether a period of occupancy is accompanied by sufficient indicia of 'permanency' such that the space occupied may be characterized as a home, residence or dwelling unit for rent-stabilization purposes is a fact-intensive question substantially turning on the intent and behavior of the parties" (Matter of Gracecor Realty Co. v Hargrove, 90 NY2d 350, 355). Here, although the plaintiffs were not the tenants of record and the language of the transitional cluster lease agreements indicate that the housing offered to the plaintiffs was "temporary," in fact, many of the plaintiffs had been residing in the buildings for several years (see e.g. id. at 356; see White Knight Ltd. v Shea, 10 AD3d 567, 567). In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that they had keys to their apartments and did not share their units with others (see Matter of Gracecor Realty Co. v Hargrove, 90 NY2d at 355). There also is no indication that the plaintiffs' placements at the buildings were revokable at will.

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text