(This story, in slightly different form, originally appeared inthe New York LawJournal.)

NEW YORK CITY-A stipulation in which a couple agreed to payhigher-than-legal rent in return for their landlord allowing themto remain in a rent-stabilized apartment that was not their primaryresidence was declared void and unenforceable yesterday by theCourt of Appeals. The 1996 apartment stipulation stated thattenants Victoria Munroe and Eric Saltzman would pay $2,000 a monthfor their rent-stabilized apartment at 155 Riverside Dr. onManhattan's Upper West Side, or $675 a month more than the legalrent on the dwelling. The apartment, actually three adjacentapartments consolidated into one by the tenants, was then to beheld by the tenants "regardless" of the fact their primaryresidence appeared to be in Cambridge, MA.

In 2000, the apartment was deregulated. Under the terms of thestipulation, the tenants were offered renewal leases every twoyears with rent increases of 8%, according to the Court's decision,which was written by Judge Robert S. Smith. When a new manager tookover the building for its owners, Riverside Syndicate, evictionproceedings were begun in 2004 to have the 1996 stipulationdeclared void and contrary to the public policy of the RentStabilization Code.