DECISION/ORDER(AFTER TRIAL) Petitioner commenced the instant holdover proceeding which seeks recovery of the subject premises from Respondent, Gwenievere Griffith. Petitioner seeks possession on the ground that the subject premises is not subject to the Rent Stabilization Laws by virtue of the building being a legal four-family home and the parties do not have a lease currently in effect. Respondent disputes this alleging that her unit is subject to rent-regulation because Petitioner has rented individual rooms, thus creating a de facto rent-regulated premises.At trial, Petitioner introduced into evidence a certified deed and a Multiple Dwelling Registration for the property. Petitioner also introduced into evidence a certified copy of the certificate of occupancy which was issued in 1924 and establishes the premises is to be a four-family dwelling. Petitioner further testified that the premises is comprised of four two-bedroom apartments: 1F, 1R, 2F, and 2R. Petitioner occupies Apt. 1R.Petitioner testified that Respondent moved into Apt. 2R in the right-most bedroom. A lease was signed for this room individually. At the time Respondent moved in, Petitioner testified that a woman named Purity occupied the left-most bedroom of the apartment. Shortly afterwards, Purity moved out and a woman named Nneka Nzekwu moved into the left-most bedroom, previously occupied by Purity. After Ms. Nzekwu vacated, Tiffanie Steele then moved into the left-most bedroom. Petitioner had separate leases with these women and each paid rent directly to Petitioner. The occupants did not have access to each other’s bedrooms and each had exclusive use of her own room. Respondent’s lease expired on January 31, 2016.As for Apt. 2F, Petitioner testified that she rents the bedrooms to two separate individuals. She testified that, originally, her grandson had exclusive access to one of the bedrooms in the apartment and another man named Alex Merelus, unrelated to Petitioner’s grandson, occupied the other. Mr. Merelus had his own agreement pertaining to his room. After Mr. Merelus moved in, Petitioner’s grandson vacated and was replaced by a man named Rico Vest. Both Mr. Merelus and Mr. Vest paid $900/month each for their respective rooms. Both men had exclusive access to their bedrooms. Petitioner testified that, thereafter in May 2016, she executed one written lease between herself and both Mr. Merelus and Mr. Vest for $1,800/month for letting Apt. 2F as co-tenants. After Mr. Merelus vacated, Petitioner testified that a man named Christopher Rucks moved into the room formerly occupied by Mr. Merelus. Currently, both Mr. Vest and Mr. Rucks occupy Apt. 2F. On cross-examination, Petitioner admitted that both men pay $900/month individually and separately from one another.Concerning Apt. 1F, Petitioner testified that in the beginning of 2016, she rented the apartment to an individual named Mr. Grant. Shortly thereafter, another unrelated individual moved into one of the bedrooms. Petitioner testified that she executed one written lease with these individuals as well for $1,800/month. Petitioner testified that currently one man lives in Apt. 1F and he pays either $900/month or $1,400/month.Ms. Nzekwu, an attorney who currently resides in Harlem and was the former occupant of the left-most bedroom in Apt. 2R, testified as a witness in support of Respondent’s case. She testified that she came across an online posting of a room to rent and that Petitioner also informed her it was shared housing. Ms. Nzekwus stated that she paid $800/month separately and individually from Respondent and did not have access to Respondent’s room nor Respondent did have access to her room.A house constructed before January 1, 1974 which contains six or more housing accommodations is subject to rent stabilization. See Robrish v. Watson, 48 Misc. 3d 143(A) (App. Term, 2d Dep’t 2015). A housing accommodation is defined as being “part of any building or structure, occupied or intended to be occupied by one or more individuals as a residence, home, dwelling unit or apartment, and all services, privileges, furnishings and facilities supplied in connection with the occupation thereof.” 9 N.Y.C.R.R. §2520.6(a).Petitioner admits that she has rented the two rooms in Apt. 2R separately. However, she claims that she has executed one written lease between the occupants of Apts. 1F and 2F thereby failing to create more than six housing accommodations in this legal four-family home. The court disagrees. Petitioner has created a de facto rent-stabilized situation at the premises. Besides Apt. 1R (occupied by Petitioner) and Apt. 2R (wherein Petitioner admits she has rented two rooms separately), Petitioner has also created at least two separate housing accommodations in Apts. 1F and 2F. This conclusion is clear from Petitioner’s own testimony at trial. Despite executing one written lease for $1,800/month between the occupants of these apartments, Petitioner has admitted that she accepts rent of $900/month from Mr. Vest and Mr. Rucks in Apt. 2F separately and that these men have exclusive use of their respective rooms. Similarly, in Apt. 1F, Petitioner has admitted that despite the lease of $1,800/month, she only collects $900/month or $1,400/month from the sole remaining occupant there.It is clear that notwithstanding the written leases which the occupants of Apt. 1F and 2F signed as “co-tenants,” Petitioner’s intention and actions have been to rent these units as shared housing. The men in these apartments are unrelated to each other and did not know each other prior to moving in, moved in at separate times, live separately and have exclusive access to their rooms, and pay their rent separately from each other which in turn Petitioner accepted and continues to accept separately from the others. This conclusion is further supported by Petitioner’s online advertisements on various websites which makes clear that Petitioner is interested in renting out only rooms in a shared housing situation where tenants rent and continue to live in rooms separately and exclusively from one another. Moreover, at all times Petitioner has created and controlled the rental agreements within the units. None of the individuals renting rooms from Petitioner have had autonomy or independence over the interior of the apartment in which they reside. The control has remained with Petitioner who has rented rooms as distinct dwelling units, and not entire apartments in conformity with the building’s certificate of occupancy.Petitioner has created a rooming house out of this four-family dwelling which consists of at least six housing accommodations. Even before the execution of the joint leases, there existed at least six housing accommodations at the premises and the joint leases did not remove the premises from rent stabilization. Since the premises was constructed prior to 1974 and contains at least six housing accommodations, the premises is subject to rent regulation.Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to plead the correct regulatory status of the premises and serve notices pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Code. Petitioner’s request for use and occupancy is denied, without prejudice, as moot.Parties are directed to retrieve their trial exhibits from Part E (Room 602) within 30 days of the date of this order.This constitutes the decision and order of the court.Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkJune 13, 2018
