Request for Question Clarification by
18 Nov 2006 21:58 PST
You probably set the hefty price in hopes that someone would answer
that this statute or precedence exists, so I won't post this as an
answer, since I doubt you'll feel as generous about a negative
Realistically, if there were some truth to this, it would be all
over the internet as a highly-prized and often-sought gem of truth.
Instead, what is easily found is information like that in this
article from the New York Times Q and A:
"'Ordinarily, for a nonrelated occupant to gain lease renewal rights
in their own name, more is required than the payment and acceptance
of rent,' Mr. Finder said. 'The courts in recent years generally
require that there be some affirmative act on the landlord's part
accepting the occupant as a new tenant, or that there be a massive
amount of evidence that the landlord acquiesced in the occupant
effectively becoming a tenant.'
It used to be, he said, that the courts, at least in Manhattan,
were more sympathetic to the rights of tenants in these cases.
'But the direction of the law and the courts over the last five
or seven years has swung to the landlord'"
Much more on the page:
Let me know if this satisfies your interest...