Landlord Claims Tenant Fraud

LVT Number: #22615

Tenants moved into a Mitchell-Lama apartment in 2004. Their application stated that they and their daughter would be the sole apartment occupants and that they intended to use the apartment as their primary residence while still owning a residence in Rockland County. In March 2006, the Mitchell-Lama status ended and the building became rent stabilized. In 2008, landlord sued to evict tenants for nonprimary residence. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds because landlord’s nonrenewal notice was untimely.

Tenants moved into a Mitchell-Lama apartment in 2004. Their application stated that they and their daughter would be the sole apartment occupants and that they intended to use the apartment as their primary residence while still owning a residence in Rockland County. In March 2006, the Mitchell-Lama status ended and the building became rent stabilized. In 2008, landlord sued to evict tenants for nonprimary residence. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds because landlord’s nonrenewal notice was untimely.

In 2009, landlord started an ejectment action in State Supreme Court. Landlord claimed that tenants committed fraud when they moved in because they didn’t use the apartment as their primary residence. Landlord also claimed that tenants’ son, who now lived in the apartment, had no succession rights. Landlord argued that tenants violated the Mitchell-Lama Law based on nonprimary residence and therefore should be evicted.

Tenants asked the court to dismiss the case before filing an answer, arguing that landlord had no valid claim. Tenants said that landlord was improperly trying to get around the unfavorable decision in the eviction proceeding.

The court ruled against tenants. The eviction proceeding was dismissed only because the nonrenewal notice was untimely. There was no decision on the merits of landlord’s claim. Landlord can maintain an action for fraud, since it claimed that tenants misrepresented the facts when they rented the apartment. The court directed tenants to file an answer and to appear for a preliminary conference.

Columbus 95th St. LLC v. Fitzmaurice: NYLJ, 4/21/10, p. 26, col. 1 (Sup. Ct. NY; Feinman, J)