Cooperatives & Condominiums

Mother-in-Law's Occupation Does Not Constitute Sublet

Owners Corp. v. Haydon

NYLJ 12/16/02, p. 18, col. 6

App. Div., First Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an action by co-op corporation against tenant/shareholder for sublet fees, tenant appealed from a Supreme Court of New York judgment awarding co-op corporation $25,294.71 in sublet fees.The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that occupation by tenant's mother-in-law, even if not authorized by the proprietary lease, did not constitute a sublet.

The proprietary lease provides that the subject apartment may not be used 'other than as a private dwelling for the Lessee and Lessee's wife, their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, and domestic employees.' Tenant permitted his wife's mother to occupy the apartment by herself, and the co-op corporation brought this action to recover sublet fees. The Supreme Court awarded fees to the co-op corporation, construing the lease to permit occupation by parents and other relatives only if tenant or his wife also occupied the premises, and holding that the mother-in-law's occupation therefore constituted a sublet. Tenant appealed.

In reversing, the Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court's construction of the lease, observing that the grammatical treatment of parents in the lease was identical to the treatment of domestic employees. The court noted that the lease did not entitle domestic employees to live in the apartment without tenant, and concluded that a parent enjoyed no greater right to live in the apartment without the named tenant or his wife. The Appellate Division also agreed with the Supreme Court that the proprietary lease and bylaws entitled the co-op corporation to impose and collect sublet fees without the approval of a majority of the shareholders. The Appellate Division nevertheless held that the Supreme Court had erred because the mother-in-law's occupation, even if unauthorized, did not necessarily constitute a sublet. The court indicated that the evidence presented was consistent with a theory that the mother-in-law was occupying at the tenant's will, and therefore did not have the rights of a subtenant. As a result, the co-op corporation was not entitled to summary judgment. Finally, the court held that even if the co-op corporation is ultimately not entitled to sublet fees, the tenant should not be treated as if tenant had prevailed for purposes of collecting attorney's fees under section 234 of the Real Property Law. The court held that no judgment rendered in the case could be viewed as substantially in tenant's favor ' a prerequisite to an award of statutory attorney's fees.

Mother-in-Law's Occupation Does Not Constitute Sublet

Owners Corp. v. Haydon

NYLJ 12/16/02, p. 18, col. 6

App. Div., First Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an action by co-op corporation against tenant/shareholder for sublet fees, tenant appealed from a Supreme Court of New York judgment awarding co-op corporation $25,294.71 in sublet fees.The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that occupation by tenant's mother-in-law, even if not authorized by the proprietary lease, did not constitute a sublet.

The proprietary lease provides that the subject apartment may not be used 'other than as a private dwelling for the Lessee and Lessee's wife, their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, and domestic employees.' Tenant permitted his wife's mother to occupy the apartment by herself, and the co-op corporation brought this action to recover sublet fees. The Supreme Court awarded fees to the co-op corporation, construing the lease to permit occupation by parents and other relatives only if tenant or his wife also occupied the premises, and holding that the mother-in-law's occupation therefore constituted a sublet. Tenant appealed.

In reversing, the Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court's construction of the lease, observing that the grammatical treatment of parents in the lease was identical to the treatment of domestic employees. The court noted that the lease did not entitle domestic employees to live in the apartment without tenant, and concluded that a parent enjoyed no greater right to live in the apartment without the named tenant or his wife. The Appellate Division also agreed with the Supreme Court that the proprietary lease and bylaws entitled the co-op corporation to impose and collect sublet fees without the approval of a majority of the shareholders. The Appellate Division nevertheless held that the Supreme Court had erred because the mother-in-law's occupation, even if unauthorized, did not necessarily constitute a sublet. The court indicated that the evidence presented was consistent with a theory that the mother-in-law was occupying at the tenant's will, and therefore did not have the rights of a subtenant. As a result, the co-op corporation was not entitled to summary judgment. Finally, the court held that even if the co-op corporation is ultimately not entitled to sublet fees, the tenant should not be treated as if tenant had prevailed for purposes of collecting attorney's fees under section 234 of the Real Property Law. The court held that no judgment rendered in the case could be viewed as substantially in tenant's favor ' a prerequisite to an award of statutory attorney's fees.