Daily Development for Tuesday, October 31, 2006
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
LANDLORD/TENANT; USE; RESIDENTIAL ONLY: Tenant's use of a rent stabilized apartment as a day care did not violate the provisions of a lease prohibiting non-residential use.
Marick Real Estate, LLC v. Ramirez, 812 N.Y.S.2d 210 (Supp.App.Term 2005).
A landlord attempted to recover possession of a rent-stabilized apartment based on violations of material terms of the lease when the tenant used the apartment as a "child care business". The material terms the landlord claimed were violated included (i) restriction of the use of the property for residential purposes, (ii) barring any actions that could increase the landlord's insurance costs and (iii) prohibitions against violations of law. The court held that the state's interest in promoting availability of home child care by restricting government interference and private covenants outweighed landlord's concerns regarding lease violations. The state’s interest is articulated in Social Services Law Sec. 390(12), which restricts public agencies from regulating against group care homes.
Comment 1: The issue of whether a covenant against group care homes violates public policy in New York is not exactly judge-made law. The original case establishing the proposition, Crane Neck Ass’n v. New York City/Long Island County Services. Group, 41 N.Y.S.. 2d 154 (N.Y. 1984) interpreted a state statute that prohibited state and local government from prohibiting lawfully licensed group care homes in residential neighborhood. The New York Court of Appeals, held that the policy of the statute also applied to private restrictions, although the statute did not so state specifically. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari: 105 S. Ct. 60.
Since then the same ruling has applied to acts by homes associations interpreting their residential only restrictions so as to preclude group care homes. Quinnones v. Board of Managers of Regal Walk Condominium I, 673 N.Y.S. 2d 450 (A.D. 1998).
Comment 2: To the editor, all of this appears to be essentially imposing on private individuals the public burden of providing group care facilities, by restricting the ability of parties to contract privately to restrict such facilities. If the state wants or needs such facilities, it can spread the cost to the public at large through the process of eminent domain.
But the editor’s argument is weakened significantly if New York does not regard servitudes as “property” that are compensable in eminent domain. As the editor understands this issue, it is divided in the state courts and not resolved at the U.S. Supreme Court level.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day.
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
for information on other commands, send the
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
To be removed from this mailing list, please go to
or send an email message to the address email@example.com,
with the text SIGNOFF FINANCE in the body of the message. Problems
or questions should be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.