1. NYC Roommate Law | NYC Roommate Law Vs. Succession Rights: the Initial Eviction Challenge
Our client faced a holdover proceeding commenced by the landlord following the death of the tenant of record, with whom he had shared the apartment for many years.
The apartment was subject to rent stabilization.
The landlord sought possession on the theory that any tenancy terminated upon the leaseholder’s death and that our client lacked independent rights to remain.
While landlords often reference the NYC roommate law (Real Property Law § 235-f) to frame such disputes narrowly, that statute primarily governs a tenant’s right to share an apartment with additional occupants during the tenant’s lifetime.
It does not determine succession rights.
The dispositive question instead falls under the Rent Stabilization Code, 9 NYCRR § 2523.5(b)(1), which governs whether a “family member” may succeed to a rent-stabilized tenancy.
Landlord’S Motion for Summary Judgment
The landlord moved for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212, arguing that our client was merely a licensee with no entitlement to succession.
To support this position, the landlord presented evidence that the deceased maintained a separate, long-term, non-cohabiting partner who held joint financial accounts and was named as a beneficiary on retirement accounts.
The landlord contended that the existence of this second relationship precluded recognition of our client as a qualifying “family member” under 9 NYCRR § 2523.5(b)(1).
The argument attempted to reduce the matter to a straightforward case of a tenancy ending upon the tenant of record’s death.
2. NYC Roommate Law | Establishing Non-Traditional Family Status under the Rent Stabilization Code
In response, our defense strategy centered on demonstrating that our client qualified as a non-traditional family member under the standards articulated in Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co., 74 N.Y.2d 201 (1989), and codified in the Rent Stabilization Code.
Braschi held that the term “family” for succession purposes must be interpreted functionally rather than restrictively, focusing on the totality of the emotional and financial commitment between the parties.
Following Braschi, the Rent Stabilization Code incorporates a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine whether a committed, family-like relationship exists.
Application of 9 Nycrr § 2523.5(B)(1) Factors
To defeat summary judgment, we presented evidence addressing the relevant factors considered under 9 NYCRR § 2523.5(b)(1), including:
The longevity of the relationship.
The level of emotional and financial commitment.
The sharing of household expenses.
The intermingling of finances, including regular cash contributions toward rent and joint expenses.
The manner in which the parties conducted themselves in daily family life.
The public or private portrayal of the relationship, recognizing that discretion does not negate legitimacy.
We emphasized that no single factor is determinative and that courts must examine the totality of the circumstances, consistent with Braschi.
3. NYC Roommate Law | Addressing the Multi-Partner Relationship Argument
The landlord argued that Braschi contemplated only a two-person relationship and could not extend to circumstances involving three individuals in separate but overlapping committed relationships.
We countered that Braschi requires courts to examine functional realities rather than impose rigid structural limits.
The relevant inquiry is whether the respondent and the tenant of record shared a committed, interdependent, family-like relationship, not whether the deceased maintained additional relationships.
We argued that modern family structures are complex and that the existence of another partner does not automatically negate succession rights if the statutory criteria are otherwise satisfied.
4. NYC Roommate Law | a Favorable Procedural Outcome
The Housing Court denied the landlord’s motion for summary judgment, finding that our client had raised a triable issue of fact regarding his status as a non-traditional family member under 9 NYCRR § 2523.5(b)(1).
The court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent, was sufficient to require a trial.
While the ruling did not definitively establish succession rights, it preserved our client’s right to remain in the apartment pending a full evidentiary hearing.
The decision reflects the continued evolution of New York housing law and reinforces that succession claims require a fact-intensive analysis beyond the limited scope of the NYC roommate law.
5. NYC Roommate Law | Legal Framework Summary
Key authorities implicated in this matter include:
Rent Stabilization Code, 9 NYCRR § 2523.5(b)(1) (succession rights for family members)
Real Property Law § 235-f (NYC Roommate Law; occupancy rights during tenancy)
Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co., 74 N.Y.2d 201 (1989)
CPLR § 3212 (summary judgment standard)
6. NYC Roommate Law | Conclusion
Succession disputes in rent-stabilized apartments require careful distinction between roommate occupancy rights and statutory succession rights.
Courts must assess whether a claimant qualifies as a non-traditional family member under the functional, totality-of-the-circumstances test established in Braschi and incorporated into the Rent Stabilization Code.
If you are facing a holdover proceeding or complex succession dispute involving a non-traditional family structure, experienced legal counsel is essential to protect your housing rights and navigate New York’s evolving regulatory framework
13 Feb, 2026
