Judge Jack Stoller
Landlords commenced this holdover action seeking possession of the subject premises claiming they required it for personal use. They alleged the premises will be used by their daughter, and her family citing the daughter’s apartment in the same building, was too small. Tenants alleged landlords lacked good faith, claiming there were other apartments on different floors, but landlords never offered the daughter those apartments. The court noted recorded conversations of landlords’ agent with tenants challenged the proposition this suit was nothing more than a spontaneous response to a daughter’s request for a larger apartment. It noted the agent’s conversations indicated landlords intended to file personal use holdover actions against tenants if they did not sign off on a de facto deregulation of the premises, and raising monthly rent stabilized rents from $1,300 to $7,000. Such evidence “makes it harder to see petitioner’s cause of action against respondents as a mere response” to petitioner’s daughter’s needs. It found landlords evicted sixth floor rent stabilized tenants in a personal use holdover, then rented it at market rate. The court ruled landlords failed to meet their burden of proving a good faith intention to use the premise for immediate family, dismissing the petition.
