light on the kind of relationship that the landlord is “suffering.” If the prior relationship was a tenancy of some kind, then it may be inferred that a tenancy by sufferance continues thereafter. The absence of a prior relationship, however, may make it more difficult to draw such an inference. This deficiency, however, does not compel the conclusion that plaintiffs will be unable to establish conduct sufficient to create a tenancy by sufferance if the allegations in the complaint are proved at trial. The initial trespassory nature of plaintiffs’ entry would not preclude it from being transformed into a tenancy by sufferance or some higher form of tenancy with the acquiescence of the owner. See Tunick v. Federal Food Stores, Inc., 117 Misc. 329, 331, 191 N.Y.S. 174 (2d Dep’t 1921) (<HOLDING>). On the contrary, the conclusion that the
holding that current version of rsa chapter 540 applies to tenancies at sufferance holding that a landlords acceptance of rent turned a trespasser to a tenant at sufferance holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property holding that trespasser did not have expectation of privacy in bedroom where he did not pay rent and had been asked to leave holding that increase in rent combined with friction between tenant and landlord does not establish claim under fair housing act