Posted by Mark Smith on August 10, 1999 at 08:44:48:
In Reply to: Re: Management trying to evict co-op owner for illegal subletting posted by Anna on August 09, 1999 at 23:29:20:
Non-primary residence is not grounds for eviction from most co-ops, except government-subsidized buildings, like Mitchell-Lama co-ops. And one housing court judge has recently ruled that non-primary residence is a curable default in a Mitchell-Lama co-op (and probably in a Mitchell-Lama rental), and cited RPAPL §753(4) to allow the tenant/co-operator ten days to cure.
Your lease allows you and your wife to live in the apartment, apparently whether your son lives there or not. RPL §235-f requires that your son live in the apartment as a primary residence in order for immediate family members and a roommate to live in the apartment.
I would strongly advise your son to consult an attorney experienced in this area of law. From what you have written, it appears that the co-op has no basis for the Notice to Cure. If RPL §234 applies, the co-op will probably have to pay your son's reasonable attorneys' fees.
: The Notice to Cure is for 'illegal sublet'? not 'non-primary residence' and the asst manager spoke to your son on the phone IN the apt they claim he does not live in? I agree with your analysis: retaliation and harassment...
: Please know that nobody has to move anytime in the near future. A Notice to Cure is NOT an eviction notice: it is a warning, probably required by your son's lease. No one can be required to move (evicted) except by a court, in this case, after a Holdover Proceeding.
: Counterclaims come later: if & when they file a lawsuit, which probably should be in Housing Court, not Supreme Court. HC is faster and less expensive.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup