Westchester Plaza Holdings, LLC v Boyd
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 7, 2018
City Court of Mount Vernon
Westchester Plaza Holdings, LLC, Landlord-Petitioner,
against
Lamonte Boyd, Christine Grice, Natae Saunders, "John Doe/jane Doe", Respondents-Tenants.
1081-18
Joseph Chiantella, Esq.
Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner
813 Jericho Turnpike
New Hyde Park, New York 11040
Theresa Gerardi, Esq.
Legal Services of the Hudson valley
100 East First Street, Suite 810
Mount Vernon, New York 10550
Adam Seiden, J.
This is a holdover summary proceeding commenced by petitioner Westchester Plaza Holdings, LLC seeking to recover possession of Apartment 7R located at 30 Park Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York (hereinafter "subject premises"). Pursuant to the petition the subject premises is covered by the ETPA.
Petitioner claims that Lamonte Boyd is the rent stabilized tenant of record and that the terms of the lease are being violated in that the subject premises are not being occupied by Lamont Boyd and his immediate family members. Petitioner served a 30 Day Notice to Terminate Based Claiming Non-Primary Residency on Lamonte Boyd, Christine Grice, Natae Saunders and John and/or Jane Doe at the subject premises on February 15, 2018. Petitioner then commenced the instant action on April 18, 2018. Respondent Christine Grice (hereinafter "respondent") filed an answer interposing a defense that she is entitled to a lease for the subject premises on the basis that she has succession rights to the premises under ETPA regulations.
A non-jury trial was held in this matter on July 24, 2018 and July 25, 2018. Prior to [*2]presenting testimony and evidence, the parties stipulated to the following facts: Lamonte Boyd, respondent and her daughter, Natae Saunders, moved into the apartment in 1997, that Mr. Boyd was the only person who signed the lease and that he and respondent had two children together while they lived in the apartment.
Ms. Jana Schmidt, an employee of the Urban America Management Company, testified for petitioner. The Urban America Management Company is the managing agent for the subject premises. Ms. Schmidt testified that she knew Mr. Boyd had moved into the apartment with respondent and her daughter back in 1997 and that they had two children together. Ms. Schmidt further testified that they received a letter from Mr. Boyd dated April 17, 2018, which was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit "3." The letter states in sum and substance that he and respondent had moved into the subject premises in March 1997 and that they had two daughters within the following two years. It further states that over the years he and respondent developed some "irreconcilable differences" and he "didn't want his daughters growing up in a household where their parents argue constantly." The letter further states that in lieu of child support he and respondent entered into an agreement for her to stay in the apartment so that she and their daughters would have a place to live and he would continue to pay the rent. In the letter Mr. Boyd also states that it was and still is his intent "to provide a secured and safe environment for my family." The letter further advises petitioner that an agreement was reached whereby his daughters would go and live with him after they graduated from high school and as such, his last lease renewal for the subject premises would expire February 28, 2018. It further advises that at that time, the apartment was occupied "by my granddaughter Aubree S. Cannon, daughters Natae D. Saunders (her daughter), Mya R. Boyd, and their mother Christine Grice."
Ms. Natae Saunders, respondent's daughter, testified on behalf of respondent. Ms. Saunders testified that she had lived at the subject location from the time she was two (2) years old until February 2018. Ms. Saunders testified about living in the subject premises with respondent, her two sisters and Mr. Boyd, whom she referred to as "Daddy." She further testified about her family life with respondent and Mr. Boyd, their shared household responsibilities, spending family time on the weekends and holidays as well as going to Boyd family reunions.
Respondent, Christine Grice, also testified on her own behalf. Respondent testified that she moved into the subject premises in March 1997 with Mr. Boyd and her daughter Natae. She stated that she was pregnant with her and Mr. Boyd's first daughter at the time. Their first daughter Janell Boyd was born in 1997 and their second daughter Mya was born in 1998. A copy of Mya's birth certificate listing Ms. Grice as her mother and Mr. Boyd as her father was entered into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit "E". Ms. Grice testified that the whole family shared their day to day lives from when they moved into the apartment until the time that Mr. Boyd moved out. Mr. Boyd provided the financial support for the family by paying the rent and for the clothes, food, school supplies, etc. Ms. Grice took care of the household chores, such as doing laundry, cooking dinner, making lunch and getting repairs done to the apartment when necessary by calling the super and providing access to the apartment. She also testified that the family spend the holidays together as well as attended Boyd family reunions. Ms. Grice further testified that in 2006 Mr. Boyd moved out but continued to pay the rent and support the children financially in lieu of child support payments as well as helping Ms. Grice when she had financial difficulties.
The issues now before the Court are whether respondent is a family member of tenant of [*3]record Lamonte Boyd and whether she maintained a family relationship with him prior to the two years he vacated the premises such that she is entitled to succession rights in the apartment. According to the applicable ETPA succession regulations if the "tenant has permanently vacated the housing accommodation, any member of such tenant's family, as defined in section 2500.2(n) of this Title, who has resided with the tenant in the housing accommodation as a primary residence for a period of no less than two years...immediately prior to the permanent vacating of the housing accommodation by the tenant...shall be entitled to be named as a tenant on the renewal lease." 9 NYCRR 2503.5(d)(1).
9 NYCRR 2500.2(n)(2) defines family as "Any other person residing with the tenant in the housing accommodation as a primary residence, who can prove emotional and financial commitment, and interdependence between such person and the tenant. Although no single factor shall be solely determinative evidence in determining whether such emotional and financial commitment and interdependence existed, the Court may include without limitation, such factors as listed below. In no event would evidence of a sexual relationship between such persons be required or considered." Some of the factors listed are longevity of the relationship, sharing of or relying upon each other for payment of household or family expenses, and/or other common necessities of life, engaging in family type activities by jointly attending family functions, holidays and celebrations, social and recreational activities, etc., holding themselves out as family members to other family members, friends, members of the community or religious institutions, or society in general, through their words or actions, regularly performing family functions or relying upon each other for daily family services and engaging in any other pattern of behavior, agreement, or other action which evidences the intention of creating a long-term, emotionally committed relationship.
It is well settled that a person claiming a right to continued possession has the affirmative obligation of establishing his right to succession. See e.g. Second 82nd Corp. v. Hahn and Stoumen, NYLJ 7/2/98 P. 32 (Appellate Term 1st Dept.) (holding burden of proof on person claiming succession); Village Mgt. Inc. v. Chase, NYLJ 12/7/93 P. 21 (Appellate Term 1st Dept.) (finding burden of proof on person claiming succession, particularly when landlord was never informed of claim prior to the demise of the tenant of record).
Based upon the evidence and testimony presented, the Court finds that Ms. Grice has established that she was a family member pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2500.2(n)(2) and was in a family relationship with Mr. Boyd during the two years prior to his permanently vacating the premises.
The term family member as defined in 9 NYCRR 2500.2(n)(2) is not rigidly restricted to people who have formalized their relationship by marriage. Rather, the intended protections of the rent stabilization regulations do not rest on fictitious legal distinctions but rather in the reality of family life. See Matter of 530 Second Ave Co, LLC v Zenker, 160 AD3d 160 (1st Dept. 2018) quoting Braschi v Stahl, 74 NY2d 201 (1989). The courts look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether an individual qualifies as a family member who is entitled to succession rights. Id. Moreover, the absence of documentary evidence does not undermine a succession rights claim when the totality of the testimonial evidence establishes the requisite emotion and financial commitment. Id. at 163.
In the case at bar, respondent credibly testified that she and Mr. Boyd were romantically [*4]involved and in a relationship akin to that of husband and wife from the time they moved into the subject premises in 1997 until he vacated the subject premises in 2006. They moved into the apartment together, raised three daughters and engaged in a typical family dynamic where he financially supported them while she was responsible for the day to day operations of the household. They celebrated holidays and attended social functions together as a family. Respondent's testimony was corroborated by both her daughter Natae Saunders credible testimony as well as Mr. Boyd's April 12, 2017 letter to petitioner. Petitioner did not submit any evidence, documentary or testimonial, which refuted respondent's testimony. As such, based upon a totality of the circumstances as established by the testimony and documentary evidence, it is clear that respondent was a family member of Mr. Boyd's from the time they moved into the apartment in 1997 until he moved out in 2006.
Moreover, it has been held that pursuant to the applicable rent stabilization regulations "permanent vacating of the housing accommodation by the tenant" means the time that the tenant permanently ceased residing at the housing accommodation, and that the mere execution of a renewal lease and the continuation of rental payments by the tenant after the tenant permanently ceases to reside at the housing accommodation does not extend the relevant time period. Matter of Jourdain, 159 AD3d 41 (2d Dept 2018). As such, in the instant matter, the relevant two year period in which Ms. Grice must have resided with Mr. Boyd was the two year period prior to when Mr. Boyd ceased residing the subject premises in 2006. Respondent's testimony regarding her and Mr. Boyd's family relationship encompassed the period of time up until he vacated the premises in 2006.
Accordingly, respondent established that she was a family member pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2500.2(n)(2) and was in a family relationship with Mr. Boyd during the two years prior to his permanently vacating the premises and therefore, is entitled to succession rights in the apartment.
Judgment in favor of the respondent. The petition is dismissed.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Dated: September 7, 2018
Mount Vernon, New York
HON. ADAM SEIDEN
Associate City Judge of Mount Vernon
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
