Tenant's Girlfriend Gets Rent-Stabilized Apartment

LVT Number: #26928

Apartment occupant complained that landlord refused to offer her a rent-stabilized renewal lease. She claimed that she was named co-tenant on a 2010 vacancy lease and that she had co-signed a two-year renewal lease in 2012. Landlord claimed that occupant was named tenant’s roommate, that she had forged copies of her signature onto the 2010 vacancy lease, and that she had added her signature to the 2012 renewal lease. The DRO ruled against occupant in 2014, finding that the 2010 vacancy lease named her only as a roommate and that she wasn't entitled to a renewal lease.

Apartment occupant complained that landlord refused to offer her a rent-stabilized renewal lease. She claimed that she was named co-tenant on a 2010 vacancy lease and that she had co-signed a two-year renewal lease in 2012. Landlord claimed that occupant was named tenant’s roommate, that she had forged copies of her signature onto the 2010 vacancy lease, and that she had added her signature to the 2012 renewal lease. The DRO ruled against occupant in 2014, finding that the 2010 vacancy lease named her only as a roommate and that she wasn't entitled to a renewal lease. Two months later, occupant requested reconsideration. She claimed that she never received DRO notices or the order due to mailbox issues and learned of the order only when landlord started an eviction proceeding against her. She now claimed succession rights, stating that tenant had moved out in 2012. In March 2015, the DRO reopened the case. The former tenant submitted a letter stating he had moved into the apartment in 2010 with occupant and her two children and that they were a couple. The DRO ruled for occupant and ordered landlord to offer her a renewal lease. Landlord appealed and lost. Occupant proved she was a nontraditional family member of prior tenant. They shared apartment expenses and lived together as a family unit. It didn’t matter that occupant may have forged her signature on tenant’s 2010 lease. This had no bearing on whether she had succession rights. 

 

 
PACST 1244-46, 1356 LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. DR210011RO (2/10/16) [5-pg. doc.]

Downloads

DR210011RO.pdf1.98 MB