Golden Mountain Realty Inc. v. Severino, 36 Misc. 3d 346 (2012)

Citation: Golden Mountain Realty Inc. v. Severino, 36 Misc. 3d 346 (2012)
Parent Document: Golden Mountain Realty Inc. v. Severino, 36 Misc. 3d 346 (2012)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2012-02-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6313383/golden-mountain-realty-inc-v-severino/ ↗

Full Text

1,334 chars

There is additional legal authority supporting a holding that remaining family members of rent control tenants were not intended to be subject to immediate eviction as licensees. The term “licensee” is not defined by New York statute, but has generally been accepted under common law as referring to a nonexclusive use and occupancy of a premises by permission of one entitled to possession. However, it has also been held that RPAPL 713 (7) is not applicable to “those who can claim an ‘opt-out’ status by virtue of inclusion in a legislative vehicle which grants them greater rights than those of a licensee” (Drost v Hookey, 25 Misc 3d 210, 216 [2009]; see also Piotrowski v Little, 30 Misc 3d 609 [2010]; Bistany v Williams, 83 Misc 2d 228 [1975] [family member remaining in occupancy after the death of the tenant of record has a protected status and is not subject to eviction by merely serving a notice to quit]). The definition of tenant under 9 NYCRR 2200.2 (o) is clearly a provision granting the remaining family members of a deceased rent control tenant of record greater rights than those of a mere licensee, even if that “tenant” does not ultimately qualify for succession under section 2204.6 (d). As such the provisions of RPAPL 713 (7) do not apply to one who qualifies as a “tenant” as defined by 9 NYCRR 2200.2 (o).

Other Sections in This Document (65)

Full Text