Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co. - 143 A.D.2d 44, 531 N.Y.S.2d 562 (App. Div. 1988)

Rule:

N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 2204.6, the city rent and eviction regulations, authorizes the issuance of a certificate for the eviction of persons occupying a rent-controlled apartment after the lease or other rental agreement of the tenant-of-record has expired or otherwise been terminated, provides in subdivision (d) that no occupant of housing accommodations shall be evicted under this section where the occupant is either the surviving spouse of the deceased tenant or some other member of the deceased tenant's family who has been living with the tenant.

Facts:

On January 27, 1987, plaintiff, Miguel Braschi, commenced an action seeking a preliminary injunction to restrain defendant, Stahl Associates Company, from taking any further action to terminate his tenancy until the court could determine whether the Braschi was entitled to maintain occupancy of the apartment as the surviving spouse or family member of the deceased. The tenant was the surviving homosexual life partner of the deceased tenant-of-record and relied on N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 2204.6(d), which provided that no occupant could be evicted under that section where the occupant was either the surviving spouse of the deceased tenant or some other member of the deceased tenant's family who had been living with the tenant. The Supreme Court for New York County granted the preliminary injunction. Thereafter, defendant sought review of the decision.

Issue:

Was the preliminary injunction properly granted on the basis of N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 2204.6(d)?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed the Supreme Court for New York County's order and denied Braschi's motion for a preliminary injunction. According to the Court, while Braschi showed a long-term relationship, he did not sustain his burden of proving the likelihood of success on the merits of his argument that a homosexual life partner was one of the designated classes of individuals. The Court noted that it was up to the legislature to grant some form of legal status to a homosexual relationship.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class