In Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp. (226 AD2d 4 [1st Dept 1996]), the Appellate Division, First Department, observed that: Although not expressly stated in the succession provision, implicit in the regulatory scheme ... is that the dwelling unit will remain in continuous use as a primary residence. As the cases that have considered the issue illustrate, the absence or removal from the premises, at the time an offer of a renewal lease is required to be made, of the person claiming succession rights gives rise to a presumption of abandonment of possession and waiver of the right of succession. This outcome is thoroughly consistent with public policy. If the merit to the succession provision is that it spares a family member the disruption of relocation at a time of potential emotional and financial stress, the merit to the requirement of continuous occupancy is that affordable residential accommodations, in scarce supply, will not go unutilized because ... the would-be successor has no immediate use for them.