Gay ‘Widower’ Challenges Definition of Family Member in N.Y. Rent Control Laws

ALBANY, N.Y. —  Miguel Braschi and Leslie Blanchard were regarded by friends as a loving couple, their Manhattan apartment the home of “any happily married couple.” But Braschi faces eviction because their landlord disagrees.

When Blanchard died in Braschi’s arms in 1986, Blanchard’s name was on the lease to the rent-controlled apartment the two men had shared for a decade.

Leases pass from parent to child or spouse to spouse under the rent control laws in New York City’s tight and pricey real estate market. Braschi says that as a “family member” he should have succession rights even though his name wasn’t on the lease.

The landlord, Stahl Associates Co., maintains Braschi had no right to the desirable apartment because he was not a member of Blanchard’s “traditional family unit . . . those related by blood, marriage or adoption.”

According to Thomas Stoddard, executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a gay rights group, “The case is about individuals who live in families that vary from the Ozzie and Harriet mold.”

State court Judge Harold Baer ruled that the men were a family under the rent-control law because of “the time, love and commitment given by Braschi to Blanchard.” Baer halted the eviction, but was overturned on appeal. The Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, will hear arguments April 26.

Remains in Apartment

Braschi is allowed to stay in the apartment while the case is in court.

“It’s not just a question for gay people,” Stoddard said. “It’s an issue about the right of each individual to enter into a non-traditional, non-orthodox relationship and be protected by the law.”

The appeals court must decide whether people in nontraditional living arrangements--homosexuals, unmarried heterosexuals, even elderly couples--have the same protection as married couples and blood relatives.

The court ruled in 1984 that one member of a homosexual couple couldn’t adopt the other to keep from being evicted from an apartment that only allowed family members to live together.

“This is the most important case in the country dealing with non-traditional family arrangements,” Stoddard said. The court’s decision could affect insurance, hospital visiting rights, inheritance and other areas in which the definition of “family” is crucial.

Blanchard had hired Braschi to manage his exclusive Manhattan beauty salon and made him sole beneficiary, leaving him $5 million.

Exchanged Bracelets

Braschi and Blanchard exchanged bracelets in 1977 as a symbol of their commitment. Braschi, 33, now wears both.

He cared for Blanchard during the final months of his life and was holding Blanchard in his arms when he died in September, 1986. Braschi says he and Blanchard “regarded one another . . . as spouses.”

“Their friends regarded them as a ‘married couple’ and their apartment as ‘the home of any happily married couple,’ ” according to court papers.

Stahl Associates has argued that the Legislature never extended succession rights to “members of a non-traditional family unit,” and has accused Braschi of trying to turn the case into a “referendum on homosexual rights.”

Braschi’s lawyers say Stahl is trying to create that impression “to prejudice the atmosphere,” and that the case is simply about family rights.

“What this case is about is people’s relationships, whether they will be protected, based on the strength of the relationship,” said Nan Hunter, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Braschi.

“It (speaks) in terms of family relationships. Family would be not just spouses. You’re protected under this law if it’s your uncle.”