leftmfy

HOUSING

Gracecor v. Hargrove, 90 N.Y.2d 350 (1997)
Defending an indigent resident from arbitrary eviction, MFY successfully argued that New York City Rent Stabilization Code protected a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) tenant living in a lodging house cubicle typical of those found in traditional Bowery hotels. The New York Court of Appeals agreed that the cubicle met the statute's definition of "housing accommodation" because, whatever its structural characteristics, it served as respondent's home.

RHM Estates v. Hampshire, No. 570728/03 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 2005)
MFY successfully argued that the occupant of a rent-stabilized apartment, an indigent artist who had lived for 15 years in a supportive, family-like relationship with the tenant before her death, should be allowed succession rights. MFY stepped in to argue that the Appellate Term's imposition of a strict requirement of evidence of financial interdependence was inappropriate and discriminatory toward indigent residents. The Appellate Division agreed that denying succession to a nontraditional family member based on the absence of this single factor was an error, in light of the other overwhelming evidence of a family-like relationship and the clear intent of the Rent Stabilization Code.

Holiday v. Franco, 268 A.D.2d 138 (1st Dep't 2000)
Representing a public housing tenant in pre-eviction proceedings, MFY successfully argued that the New York City Housing Authority could not terminate a tenancy in public housing due to violation of an agreement which permanently excluded tenant's son. The court held that the presence of the petitioner's excluded son in the apartment without her knowledge was not a violation of the agreement. The prohibition against visitation by petitioner's son, against whom she had a restraining order, as a condition of continued tenancy, was unreasonable, absent misconduct by the petitioner.

210 West 94 LLC v. Concepcion, 2003 NY Slip Op 50612U, 2003 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 179 (App. Term 1st Dep't 2003) (per curiam) MFY successfully argued to a New York State appellate court that landlords could not use housing code violations, based on statutes designed to protect the health and safety of tenants, as an excuse to terminate the long-term tenancy of a rent-stabilized tenant, where the City had not itself found any violation of the housing code.

In re Robinson v. Martinez, 308 A.D.2d 355 (1st Dep't 2003), aff'g Robinson v. Finkel, 194 Misc. 2d 55 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2002) MFY represented a 21-year resident of public housing who had been convinced to sign a stipulation excluding her teenage son from her apartment permanently because he had allegedly committed a drug violation in the project, though the criminal charges against him were dismissed. The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) sought to evict her because she had allowed him to sleep in her apartment for one night when he was seriously ill in order to go to the hospital across the street early the next morning. MFY successfully argued that NYCHA had violated its own procedures, which were adopted to ensure protection of the residents' constitutional rights, and had imposed a "shockingly disproportionate" penalty in terminating her tenancy.