Posted by consigliere on January 25, 2002 at 02:19:04:
In Reply to: Re: roommate rules; JJ is not wrong posted by JJ on January 24, 2002 at 23:25:51:
Capital Holding Co. v Stavrolakes isn't just an Appellate Division decision, it's also a Court of Appeals decision -- 92 N.Y. 2d 1009, 684 N.Y.S.2d 477, 707 N.E.2d 432 (1998).
However, the case dealt with a rent controlled tenant without a lease. Therefore, there was nothing to limit the number of roommates, other than the overcrowding provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Housing Maintenace Code.
Roxborough Apts Corp. v Becker dealt with a rent stabilized tenant who had a lease that didn't seem to limit the number of roommates, according to the housing court. Unfortunately, the Appellate Term reversed the housing court decision, and the case ended with the Appellate Term decision -- 723 N.Y.S.2d 817, 187 Misc. 2d 604 (2000).
: The original poster had a lease which says (maybe) "The lease does state
: however that only persons named on it can occupy the apt"
: Stavrolakes is an Appellate DIVISION decision: Div trumps Term 24/7.
: Re-read all these whole decisions, not just the summaries on TenantNet.
: : The Stavrolakes case involved a rent controlled tenant with several roommates and no written lease. Therefore, there was nothing to limit the number of roommates, except laws that prohibit overcrowding.
: : The person who asked the question has a lease which (illegally) prohibits a roommate. Therefore, the roommate law, Real Property Law §235-f, would allow the tenant to have family members and ONE roommate, and the dependent children of the roommate.
: : For a while, it looked like the case of Roxborough Apartments v. Becker would allow a tenant to have more than one roommate under the very common form lease of the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), but the Appellate Term reversed the housing court's decision.
: : Click on the link below for a summary of the Appellate Term's decision in TenantNet's Housing Court Decisions for December 2000.
: : : :
: : : : Can anyone explain the legalities here:
: : : : I rented an apartment (not regulated) in NYC two months ago. I told the managing agent I would be living there with two other roommates. The three of us met her. The agent and I agreed that I would be the only one on the lease. The lease does state however that only persons named on it can occupy the apt. (is says a few other things that seem illegal or were clearly not to be the case and it is a form for a 2-5 unit building while this is a 25 unit bldg.) So obviously the agent knew that part of the lease was not going to be fulfilled when she met us and when I signed. Now we have two additional roommates, a total of five, one happens to be my domestic partner. Can she object if she were to find out? Should I send a letter with all our names? We will be paying the rent and all, and she may never find out anyway...what to do?
: : : : Thanks for any help.
: : : You can have as many as you like as long as you don't exceed the overcrowding statutes (in the MDL and the HMC).
: : : See RRL 235-f
: : : Real Property Law 235-f.
: : : Goto the Housing Court Decisions section here on TenantNet and search on [roommate].
: : : Read Stavrolakes decision.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup