I live in a market-rate one-bed on the Upper East Side in a six-unit prewar. I'm the only person named on the current lease, which runs until early spring. My partner is moving in at the end of next month. I did what I thought was responsible: gave management a heads-up with her name and move date.

Rather than saying yes or no, the landlord's broker sent back a packet asking for a new lease with both of our names, a non-refundable $1,500 'lease processing fee,' plus an application and credit check form for her. The current lease says something like: no one not named can stay more than 10 days without prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

So my question is whether their consent process can legally mean 'pay $1,500 and sign a new lease.' I've been reading RPL §235-f, which seems to say I can share the apartment with my partner and the landlord can't unreasonably refuse, but the text doesn't explicitly say they can't charge a fee or require her to sign. She's not going to be receiving mail on a lease, we aren't asking for her to be liable for rent, and we're not asking for a sublet.

Has anyone actually pushed back on this and won? I'm trying not to poison the relationship with management over what might be a standard boomer building thing, but I also don't want to hand over $1,500 for a one-line occupancy rider. Any direction appreciated.

Don't sign the new lease. The broker is trying to turn an occupant notice into a lease assignment, because your partner would then become jointly and severally liable, and the management can call it a 'new lease' rather than the current term continuing. Under the Roommate Law, you're entitled to allow one additional occupant when you're the only named tenant, as long as the apartment isn't overcrowded and you don't have a clause that genuinely prohibits it. The 'consent not unreasonably withheld' language cuts in your favor; charging $1,500 for a no-sublet occupancy request is not reasonable.

I would send the management a short letter by certified mail with your partner's name, move date, relationship, a statement that she will not be a tenant or subtenant, and a request for written consent. Do not fill out a rental application. If they want your partner on the lease because she's contributing to rent and they need her income for a future renewal, that's a different conversation, but you don't need that for occupancy.

One caveat: if the building is de facto rent stabilized, the fee is even more out of bounds. Does your lease have a rider mentioning an occupancy fee? I had a similar thing in Astoria; management backed down after I asked them to point to the lease paragraph that authorizes the $1,500 fee.

Two separate issues here. The first is the landlord's consent; the second is the fee. RPL §235-f covers occupancy by a family member and one additional occupant, and 'occupant' does not require the person to sign the lease. The tenant remains the tenant. Unless your lease specifically says occupants must be added by lease amendment and that amendment must cost a specific amount, the $1,500 is not a consent to occupancy, it's a new contract.

For market-rate units, the landlord can charge you only the actual cost of processing something like a credit check if your partner is applying to become a leaseholder, but that's not what you've proposed. New York caps application fees at $20 per applicant for a licensed broker, and there's a good argument the $1,500 is an illegal 'key money' fee disguised as a processing fee.

Also, since you're in a six-unit prewar building in Manhattan, I'd seriously pull the rent history. If the unit is rent stabilized, the landlord cannot condition your continued occupancy on paying a fee to add an occupant, and the DHCR has found those fees to be unlawful rent in many cases. Before you write back, ask them for the exact lease paragraph they think authorizes a new lease. When they can't produce it, they usually pivot.

Appreciate the responses. The lease actually has that generic ten-day clause, plus a boilerplate paragraph: 'Any occupant not named in a lease rider must be approved in writing; landlord may require reasonable documentation and a non-refundable processing fee not to exceed actual costs.' That second clause is what they're hanging the $1,500 on. They say it covers 'legal, underwriting, and administrative' review. I don't see how $1,500 is actual costs to add a name to a rider. I'm not asking them to run a vacancy lease or transfer rights.

I'm also now curious about the building's rent history after the comment about six units and prewar. I pulled the DOF property card once to check the number of units; it says six. It's possible the unit was deregulated before I moved in. But if they're trying to treat this as a new lease, I'd rather not hand them an excuse to pivot to a full vacancy deregulation event if the unit flipped.

What exactly should I request from DHCR, and is there any downside to asking? I don't want to start a legal cold war with a landlord who's mostly been okay.

Oh, I have been down this exact rabbit hole! Have you tried searching the PropertyShark or DOB BIS for the building's old C of O? The prewar six-unit building I lived near in Washington Heights was listed as a 'tenement' and everyone said 'market rate' because the facade had been redone. Guess what? The original C of O said tenements, and DHCR had multiple rent registrations for the same units!

The $1,500 'underwriting and administrative' language is not actual costs — it's the same junk the broker across the street tried on a basement unit; the fee vanished after one certified letter. Do NOT hand over the $1,500!!! Also, have you tried asking for the board package? No wait, that's co-ops. But seriously, ask the landlord for the invoice from their attorney or underwriter that totals $1,500. They won't have one, because a one-line occupant rider is not a new lease underwriting process.

I would also check the DHCR's public records or use the office's rent history request form. If there's a registration in the last four years, you might actually be rent stabilized, and then this fee is absolutely illegal and possibly a rent overcharge if they've already been charging you extra. If you have the time, open a HPD portal case too! The more paper, the better!

I wouldn't start with HPD or DHCR complaints if you want to preserve the management relationship, especially if the unit is actually deregulated and you're not sure. A certified letter asking them to identify the specific 'actual costs' and the lease provision supporting the $1,500 is enough for most management companies. I had a client-like situation where the landlord tried a similar $800 lease amendment fee; the request disappeared once the tenant wrote, 'I am not requesting a new lease, I am providing notice of an occupant under applicable law. Please confirm consent and provide your actual itemized processing costs.'

The important thing is to avoid saying anything that sounds like you're 'applying' for a new tenancy. Don't use the word 'application.' Your partner is not applying for a lease; she's giving notice to occupy a space to which you already have rights. The moment you hand them an application with an application fee, you've let them frame it as a new tenancy.

Also, update her name on the buzzer only after they consent, not before; some landlords try to argue that use of the name on the buzzer creates a landlord-tenant relationship.

One correction to the term 'new lease': if you sign a new lease with both names while the existing term hasn't ended, you could technically create a surrender of the old lease and a new tenancy. That has consequences for rent stabilization if the unit is stabilized, because a vacancy lease can be the point where the landlord raises rent up to the statutory vacancy increase or tries to deregulate if you're near the threshold. Even in market-rate, signing a new lease could restart the cycle and waive the current renewal terms. You don't need that. The Roommate Law's additional occupancy right is not a sublet assignment, so no new lease is required.

Also, for what it's worth, 'non-refundable processing fee not to exceed actual costs' is a clause that landlords love, but the fee still must be actual and reasonable. If they can't line-item it, it's not enforceable. Ask for an accounting. This is more of a negotiation: your position should be 'I'll pay the actual out-of-pocket cost of a rider if you show me the invoice; I won't pay $1,500 for a new contract.'

Yes! rent_stab_ric is right about the surrender! Have you tried mapping the old registration on Who Owns What? It's not just for stabilized units; the city has a database you can use to see the landlord portfolio and other DOB violations. I once looked up a six-unit building in the Bronx where the same LLC owned 400 units and charged every new tenant a $1,000 'processing fee' for moving in. After someone complained, the AG office started asking questions!

If your landlord has multiple buildings, this could be a revenue stream, not an actual processing cost. You should also check if your original lease has an 'NYS disclosure' form or a DHCR rider. If it says 'rent stabilized' anywhere, hold onto it. If not, request your rent history anyway — you can do it by mail with unit number and building address. It's worth the $10 or whatever the fee is.

And don't let them rush you with 'partner moves in next month, need an answer in 48 hours.' They're betting on the pressure. Send the letter, ask for the invoice, and watch the fee become $75 for a background check.