[dominicmauro]

Last year, this fellow named Warren tried that logic in NYC. It didn't work too well. The Verge ran a piece about it back in May 2013.

> The law seems to include an exemption for hosts who rent out an extra room or couch to a "lawful boarder" for less than 30 days, but remain in the dwelling while the guest is there. Because Warren's roommate was home while his Russian boarder was there, he argued that the exemption should apply. However, the judge interpreted the terms "boarders and lodgers" in the law to mean "occupants who share the life of the dwelling with its permanent occupants" and not to "complete strangers who have no, and are not intended to have any, relationship with the permanent occupant." Because the Russian visitor did not interact with Warren or his roommate, the judge said, the exemption should not apply.

That last sentence is an interesting interpretation of the judge's decision, but the rest of it is pretty spot on. The opinion in question is here: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/702734/decision-and-or... [PDF]

[_delirium]

Ah, that's interesting. That seems like it would still allow a "classic" boarder, who interacts more with the household, including typically eating meals along with the household rather than only renting a room (as in "room and board"), not purely renting out a room. But probably safer if there is also some other connection (friend-of-a-friend, etc.), reading the other bits of the blurb.

[dominicmauro]

Yeah, it seems like the judge is making an effort to let you have friends and friends-of-friends, just not customers. It's worth noting that this is an opinion from Administrative Law Judge, which is about a half-dozen appeals from the State's highest court, the Court of Appeals. So there are plenty of judges who could overrule this in the next few years.