Interesting rent-control succession case

Waded through all the pages. Interesting what the courts consider to be a spousal relationship. Her death sounds like a hospital blunder.

Wonder if he poisoned her or at least helped her along

The problem with getting together with an older woman in a rent control deal is that so many of them are nuts

I'm not a big fan of rent control. So I would be very skeptical of an ex popping up at the end of someone's life to claim family status. However, court says they saw plenty of evidence they spend the last several years together, collaborated with many witnesses. Should the rule for passing on tenancy be tightened (in my opinion yes), does this guy qualify based on the current rule (based on involvement and relationship, yes). I am not sure what my end of life situation is going to be (and I am very far away from that point), but if someone stays with me during those hardest moments, they are my life partner (even if its only for a handful of my last life years).

Cynical I am, but poison someone after staying with them through the many years of end years, through 2 years of depression (knowing that she suffered depression in her younger years so it wasn't news to him)... Give the guy a little benefit of doubt that he did care about her.

The only question I wasn't clear on, is he planning on living there as his primary residence?

He has to keep 190 RSD as his primary residence, or he loses it.

He has a subtenant for his 66 Madison co-op, and apparently gave up 114 Horatio after Judy died.

I'm no fan of rent control either, but given that it exists, I'm glad the courts held that this guy qualified.

Not sure what is more antiquated: these rent control laws or electroconvulsive therapy. Nothing says love like brining in a loved one for induced mini-seizures. Shocking that she died.

Fairway, I believe your comment holds equally true for older men. And this is hardly the worst example of succession rights (which I truly want to see tightened) in rc/rs apartments (which I want to maintain for seniors and moderate income residents). While hardly optimal, these two clearly had a domestic partnership type relationship starting (again) in 2002 and the primary tenant died in 2011. The horror story is when somehow Johnny or Jill "moves in" with Grandma (i.e. registers to vote, gets some mail, maybe even spends a few nights) and presto claims Grandma's apartment when she passes away. Then you have a twenty, thirty, fortysomething person living in an apartment whose rental status reflects pre-1971 laws and conditions. Unfortunately, these stories play right into the hands of those who would eliminate rent regulation completely and make Manhattan particularly an island exclusively for the wealthy, devoid of economic diversity and not much on any other kind either.

Just to keep this case in perspective, the "victim" is an LLC that bought about 25 rent-regulated apartments in a 2004 bulk transaction, for a small fraction of their "value-if-vacant". The investors knew exactly what they were buying, and the complications they could expect in ridding themselves of tenants and aspiring successors. This kind of litigation - including the occasional setback in court - is simply a cost of doing business.

Exactly. Everybody wins some and loses some.

This case hit the New York Law Journal just because it wasn't cut-and-dried. I think this judge decided it correctly, but the facts appear to be more ammo for those who get all het up over RC/RS.

What W81 said. The location of these apts and FMV (upon vacancy) is such that even if they were FM, it would mean nothing in terms of affordable . There have been enough vacancies since '04 for the LLC to have made $.