The New York Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision denying succession rights to a Mitchell-Lama apartment, ruling that the city housing agency had a rational basis for rejecting an application from a man who cared for his terminally ill brother. In *Matter of Mantilla v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development* (2025 NY Slip Op 07079), decided Dec. 18, 2025, the court upheld the Department of Housing Preservation and Development's determination that petitioner Kermit Mantilla failed to establish the apartment as his primary residence for the required time period.
The case centers on succession rights under the Mitchell-Lama housing program, which provides affordable housing to middle-income families in New York City. When a Mitchell-Lama tenant dies, certain family members may inherit the right to continue the lease under specific conditions.
According to court documents, Mantilla traveled from his Florida residence to New York in August 2018 to care for his brother, who was suffering from a terminal illness and lived in a Mitchell-Lama apartment. After his brother's death in March 2020, Mantilla applied for succession rights to continue the lease.
To qualify for succession rights to a Mitchell-Lama apartment, applicants must meet several requirements. They must demonstrate they are an eligible family member, show they were listed on income documentation such as income affidavits or recertifications, and prove they lived in the apartment with the tenant as their primary residence for at least one year immediately prior to the tenant's permanent vacation of the apartment.
The Housing Preservation and Development agency denied Mantilla's application, determining he had not established that the Mitchell-Lama apartment served as his primary residence for the required one-year period before his brother's death. This determination formed the basis of the administrative proceeding that ultimately reached the state's highest court.
The legal challenge focused on whether the agency's decision had a rational basis under administrative law standards. In administrative law, courts generally defer to agency determinations unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or lack a rational basis. This standard requires that the agency's decision be supported by substantial evidence and reasonable interpretation of applicable regulations.
Judge Cannataro, writing for the Court of Appeals, framed the central issue as "whether there is a rational basis for the respondent agency's determination that petitioner was not entitled to succession rights to the Mitchell-Lama apartment formerly leased to his deceased brother because petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish that the apartment was his primary residence for the one-year period before his brother's death."
The court agreed with the Appellate Division's earlier ruling that the agency's determination was supported by a rational basis. This finding suggests that the Housing Preservation and Development agency properly applied the relevant regulations and had sufficient evidence to conclude that Mantilla had not met the primary residence requirement.
Primary residence requirements in housing succession cases often involve complex factual determinations. Agencies typically consider factors such as where an applicant receives mail, maintains personal belongings, pays taxes, and spends the majority of their time. The fact that Mantilla maintained a residence in Florida while caring for his brother in New York likely complicated his ability to demonstrate primary residence in the Mitchell-Lama apartment.
The case highlights the strict requirements governing succession rights in Mitchell-Lama housing, which was created in 1955 to address New York's affordable housing shortage. The program provides below-market-rate apartments and cooperatives to middle-income residents, making succession rights valuable to families seeking to maintain affordable housing.
Dennis Fan represented Mantilla in the appeal, while Chase Henry Mechanick appeared for the Housing Preservation and Development agency. The Legal Aid Society participated as amicus curiae, indicating broader interest in the case's implications for housing rights.
The Court of Appeals decision reinforces the importance of strict compliance with succession requirements in Mitchell-Lama housing. Potential successors must carefully document their primary residence status well before a tenant's death to preserve their rights.
This ruling may impact other family members who relocate to care for relatives in Mitchell-Lama apartments. While the court recognized the compassionate nature of Mantilla's situation—caring for a terminally ill brother—it emphasized that succession rights depend on meeting specific regulatory requirements rather than the worthiness of the applicant's motives.
The decision also demonstrates the courts' general deference to housing agency determinations when they are supported by substantial evidence and reasonable regulatory interpretation. This approach maintains consistency in affordable housing administration while limiting judicial second-guessing of expert agency decisions.
For housing advocates and Mitchell-Lama tenants, the case underscores the importance of understanding succession requirements before family emergencies arise. Early planning and documentation of primary residence can prevent the loss of valuable affordable housing rights during difficult family circumstances.