Tenant Buyout Agreement Didn't Conform to Anti-Harassment Law Provisions

Landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant's daughter, claiming that tenant had surrendered her tenancy in a buyout agreement with landlord. Tenant died after landlord started the court case. The daughter disputed landlord's claim that tenant had surrendered possession, and also claimed succession rights.

The trial court found that the agreement violated NYC Admin. Code Section 27-2004(a)(48)(f-2) concerning buyouts and harassment of tenants and therefore wouldn't enforce the agreement. The court noted that it could enforce an out-of-court agreement of a rent-regulated tenant to surrender an apartment for consideration when a landlord otherwise had cause to evict the tenant, when the tenant obtained the advice of counsel, and when the tenant initiated the negotiation leading to an agreement.

In this case, it was unclear who initiated the buyout discussion, but landlord had no cause to seek possession of the apartment at the time of the agreement. Tenant also wasn't represented by an attorney, and her daughter claimed that landlord instructed them not to do so. Landlord denied this but hadn't complied with the law by notifying tenant in writing at the outset that she was entitled to retain counsel. By law, this constituted harassment.

Landlord also claimed it didn't know about the buyout-harassment law provisions, but this was no excuse for failure to comply with the law. So the court declined to enforce the buyout agreement.

However, landlord pointed out that tenant's daughter had already received $50,000 as part of the agreement. The court adjourned the case for a conference, and possibly a new trial, on the issue of refunding that payment to landlord.

138 Union Fee LLC v. Sitjar: 2020 NY Slip Op 51250(U), Index No. 55498/2019 (Civ. Ct. Kings; 10/29/20; Stoller, J)