Mitchell-Lama Tenant's Family Members Don't Prove Succession Rights

LVT Number: #31069

Family members of Mitchell-Lama building tenant claimed succession rights to the apartment after tenant moved out. HPD ruled against the family members. The family members then filed an Article 78 court appeal, claiming the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Family members of Mitchell-Lama building tenant claimed succession rights to the apartment after tenant moved out. HPD ruled against the family members. The family members then filed an Article 78 court appeal, claiming the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable.

The court ruled against the family members. HPD rationally determined that the family members failed to prove they lived in the apartment with tenant as a primary residence for two years before tenant moved out. A letter from tenant submitted to HPD in support of the family members' application contained statements that were both inconsistent with each other and with statements made by the family members. The family members failed to submit proof establishing when tenant had lived in the apartment as her primary residence with them and when she moved out. The family members didn't supply any NYC income tax returns filed by tenant using the apartment address or any proof that tenant wasn't required to file such a return.  They also didn't submit any of tenant's bank or utility statements, voter registration records, or proof of her residency elsewhere as of a particular date.

Halcomb v. HPD: 2020 NY Slip Op 06212, Case No. 2019-04151 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 10/29/20; Renwick, JP, Gesmer, Kern, Singh, JJ)