Hi, I have a question. I have recently vacated my coop apt and my adult child has moved in. The occupancy agreement has one of those standard clauses which say that it could be occupied by the owner and his immediate family. A superficial review of googlable case law seemed indicated that such clauses require concurrent occupancy by the owner and family. But then I found this in the new York times:
On the other hand, for co-ops in the other three boroughs, the courts have interpreted the word “and” to mean “or.” So, in Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island, the daughter could reside in the apartment even though the shareholder is not in residence. http://realestateqa.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... nts-co-op/
Unfortunately, I cant really find any recent examples of such cases (other than Barbizon Owners Corp. v Chudick, which is a 15 year old opinion). Can any of you point me to any queens/Brooklyn trial or appeals decisions where this is the case. Also, are first dept appellate division rulings binding on second dept trial courts?