Mitchell-Lama tenant sought to move to a different two-bedroom apartment in building, but failed to meet the occupancy requirements of three persons. In 2014, Lawrence Wilson and his partner occupied a two-bedroom apartment in a Mitchell-Lama building. They sought to move to a different two-bedroom apartment in the same building. Another couple, Nickita Skopelitis and Joann Papamichael, who lived in the same building with their child, also sought to transfer to the same two-bedroom apartment.
The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development denied Wilson’s application on the ground that he did not meet the applicable occupancy requirements. HPD’s regulations provide that in a Mitchell-Lama building, a two-bedroom apartment may be occupied only by a household consisting of “no fewer than three persons, a brother and sister who are both adults, or a parent or guardian with at least one child.” At the time of the application, the petitioner resided only with his partner.
Wilson commenced an article 78 proceeding challenging the HPD’s determination. Skopelitis and Papamichael intervened in the article 78 proceeding and asked the court to order HPD to give them the two-bedroom apartment. The Supreme Court granted Wilson’s petition to review HPD’s denial of their application to move.
HPD and Skopelitis and Papamichael appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court decision and upheld HPD’s three person rule. The Appellate Division found that the HPD had a rational basis for enforcing its occupancy rules, and had not acted arbitrarily when HPD refused to allow Wilson and his partner to move into the two-bedroom apartment.
Wilson v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 145 A.D.3d 905 (2d Dep’t Dec. 21, 2016) (Attorneys: Zachary W. Carter, Pamela Seider Dolgow, Rachel Moston, Kathy Chang Park, for NYC).
By: Nicole Santo (Nicole is a student at New York Law School, Class of 2018).