Co-ops and Condominiums

In an article 78 proceeding brought by a romantic partner of a deceased co-op shareholder challenging the co-op’s refusal to transfer shares, romantic partner appealed from the Appellate Division’s affirmance of Supreme court’s denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the co-op’s action did not constitute housing discrimination based on the partner’s marital status within the meaning of the New York City Human Rights Law.
Partner lived with the shareholder for 13 years until his death. The shareholder’s will left the unit to his partner. The proprietary lease for the unit provided that the co-op’s consent was not necessary if shares were assigned to the lessee’s spouse. With respect to assignment to other family members, the lease provided that consent was necessary, but would not be unreasonably withhold if the family member were financially responsible. When shareholder died and the partner sought a transfer of the shares and the lease, the board noted that she would have to show that she was a spouse or financially responsible family member. When she did not provide a marriage license or evidence demonstrating that she was a family member, the board invited her to apply in the same manner as a prospective purchaser. When she submitted the documentation, the board rejected her application. The partner then brought an article 78 proceeding contending that the board’s refusal to transfer the lease and shares violated the Human Rights Law’s prohibition on discrimination based on marital status. Supreme Court denied the petition and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

In affirming, the Court of Appeals majority emphasized that a plain reading of the term is that marital status reflects the legal condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced or widowed. The court also pointed to legislative history indicating that marital status “refers to whether a person is participating in a marriage, not the nature of one’s relationship with another specific person.” As a result, the co-op corporation did not violate the Human Rights law by limiting the right to assign to spouses of a shareholder. Judges Wilson and Rivera, in separate dissents, argued for a broader construction of “marital status” as used in the Human Rights Law.