Landlord & Tenant
Sakele Brothers, LLC v. Dey Street Enterprises
(Civ. Ct. NY 9/14/07)
Respondent/Tenant's motion to dismiss denied. Respondent argues that the discontinuance of an earlier proceeding was with prejudice, and that the lease provision that Petitioner invoked to commence this holdover proceeding is ambiguous and provides no clear basis for petitioner to commence the proceeding. Respondent’s claim that petitioner’s discontinuance of prior non-payment proceeding acts as a discontinuance with prejudice pursuant to CPLR 3217(c) is unavailing. The purpose of CPLR 3217(c) is to restrict the use of the discontinuance device as a means of harassment and a source of repetitive litigation. Where it is clear that a party is not attempting to harass, but has a legitimate purpose for a discontinuance, a prior discontinuance by means of notice does not operate as an adjudication on the merits. Here, the record does not support an argument that Petitioner was attempting to harass respondent, but had a legitimate purpose in its prior discontinuance on notice -- that is, Petitioner’s anticipation of being paid without going forward with the nonpayment proceeding. Moreover, Petitioner's assertion correct that lease does indeed contain a conditional limitation. Contrary to Respondent’s contention that conditional limitations are not favored by law, when a lease between commercial parties contains a conditional limitation for nonpayment of rent, it shall be enforced in the absence of a showing of fraud, overreaching or other unconscionable conduct by the landlord, which Respondent fails to make.
TS Tenant, LLC. v. Insurent Agency Corp.
(Civ. Ct. NY 4/19/06)
Respondent-tenant's motion to dismiss in commercial non-payment proceeding denied, which alleged that landlord did not properly notice tenant because there existed a license agreement between the parties, and therefore a 10 day notice to quit pursuant to RPAPL §713 should have been served, instead of the 30 day notice to terminate a tenancy pursuant to RPL §232. Although the agreement between the parties was entitled "Temporary License Agreement", the agreement incorporated the terms of a Loft Lease Form indicating the intentions of the parties to maintain a landlord and tenant arrangement. Moreover, clearly pursuant to specific language in the agreement itself there was no intention to continue under the Temporary License Agreement upon the agreement's expiration. Furthermore, Respondent remained on the premises subsequent to the agreement's expiration, and Respondent paid rent on a monthly basis, thereby creating a month-to-month tenancy pursuant to RPL §232. Finally, Respondent's possession of the property was exclusive, Petitioner did not have access to the property, which is an element of a landlord and tenant relationship; a license is non-exclusive.
90 William Street Development Group, LLV c. Oshman &
Mirisola, LLP, et al.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 11/25/05)
Respondent's objection to the timeliness of a notice to cure based on its contention that petitioner was required under the Court of Appeals case ATM One LLC v. Landaverde to add five days for mailing, was rejected by the court. Landaverde cannot be read to apply to a commercial landlord-tenant proceeding where the lease is absolutely specific as to the service requirements for the notice to cure, to wit: where the lease provides that the notice will be deemed to have been given on the date when it shall have been mailed. Thus, tenant was given more than the full cure period it bargained for when it agreed to the terms of the lease. Also, the notice was served upon the correct party, although such party may have assigned the lease, because Landlord gave no consent to such assignment as required by the lease. Thus Tenant's motion to dismiss was denied.
Down East Properties, Inc. v. DiMase
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 8/15/05)
Summary judgment for landlord in this residential holdover proceeding against a tenant-at-will. The tenant's husband's family owned this luxury apartment. Years earlier, the husband's family had sued to evict both tenant and her husband, and a warrant of eviction was obtained; however, the husband's family never executed the warrant. The tenant and her husband subsequently separated and the husband moved out of the apartment. This case resulted when the estranged husband's family again sued tenant. Tenant attempted to dismiss this proceeding, claiming the prior action by her estranged husband's family was still pending. The court rejected this argument, ruling the prior holdover proceeding was deemed abandoned. Next, tenant's motion for a declaratory judgment denied because the Housing Court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief. Moreover, tenant was correctly sued as a tenant-at-will because an owner's acquiescence in a continued occupancy where the occupancy is subordinate to the title of owner may justify the inference that a tenancy-at-will has been created. Finally, landlord maintained its burden in establishing the prima facie elements of its petition and tenant did not dispute them, therefore summary judgment for landlord was granted.
82 Thomas Street Realty Corp. v. Robert Harding
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 11/18/04)
Summary judgment for Petitioner-Landlord in this Loft case where no triable issue of fact exists because Respondent-Tenant never applied for reconsideration of or appealed a ruling of the Loft Board which determined that the subject premises was de-regulated. The Court must defer to the Loft Board.
Madison Third Building Companies v. Fox Hall Realty Law
Office, Inc.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 4/6/04)
Subtenant's motion to dismiss for defective service was denied. Respondent-Overtenant was in the business of subleasing office space. Upon the commencement of this action, Landlord served the front desk receptionist of the Overtenant. The front desk receptionist told Landlord's process server that she was authorized to accept service on behalf of the Subtenants. The Court held that the overtenant had a strong incentive to pass the papers along to the subtenants, and since there were no allegations that the papers were in fact never received, service was proper.
Atlantic Westerly v. I.G.M.P. Management Inc.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 3/31/04)
Court granted Respondent's motion for an order dismissing the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon landlord's incorrect description of the premises. Landlord described the Premises as store #10 in both the Rent Demand and Petition. In fact, in the lease between the parties, the correct store number is #9. The Court held that an accurate description of the premises is so fundamental to a summary proceeding that a defect will deprive the court of jurisdiction.
82 Thomas St. Realty Corp. v. Skopic
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2/5/04)
Summary judgment denied to tenant in non-primary residence holdover, where, although tenant garners a great deal of sympathy because she is a single mother living within blocks of the site of the World Trade Center disaster, the facts of the tenant's residence in Pennsylvania for approximately sixteen months are almost entirely within the tenant's control and not within the petitioner's control. Also, tenant's defenses stricken, including that the change in the Golub notice window period to 90 - 150 days was unconstitutional.
Brocros Realty Corp. v. INTV, Inc.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 12/5/03)
Summary judgment for landlord denied where commercial tenant raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the petition was issued by an authorized officer of the corporate petitioner. Corporate landlord was involved in a separate Supreme Court proceeding for the dissolution of its corporation. Tenant asserted that president of the corporate landlord commenced summary proceeding without the authority of the corporation, and the only reason the proceeding was commenced was to drag tenant into an internecine dispute among the shareholders of landlord corporation. Tenant asserted that pursuant to RPAPL § 721, the person claiming to be acting on behalf of the landlord in fact had no authority to do so and therefore has no standing to maintain the proceeding.
Jin Kwan Choi v. 333 Henry Street Corp.
(Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 5/6/03)
Plaintiff, a tenant with a 10-year lease in a building owned by defendant, failed to comply with the exhaust system requirements of the Administrative Code of New York. Defendant landlord then notified plaintiff that he was in default of the lease and had five days to cure the default. After Notice to Cure expired, defendant elected to terminate plaintiff's lease. In order to enjoin defendants from taking possession of plaintiff's premises or from commencing proceedings to terminate or cancel his leasehold interest and proprietary lease with respect to the premises, plaintiff requested a Yellowstone injunction, but because he waited until two months after the expiration of the Notice to Cure, the court rejected plaintiff's request on the basis of its untimeliness.
Semans v. Kennedy
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 8/21/02)
Petitioner landlords commenced summary proceeding against respondent tenants to recover rent arrears. Tenants argued that they were not obligated to pay rent from the initial occupancy date until the time when landlords obtained of certificate of occupancy. Court rejected tenants' argument, ruling that lack of certificate of occupancy was not a barrier to landlord's collection of rent, since delay in issuance of certificate of occupancy was due to bureaucratic complications and to finishing details requested by tenants, and landlords' work on apartment did not threaten the building's structural integrity or the health and safety of tenants. Court ordered tenants to pay rent due.
For press on Itkowitz & Harwood's work on behalf of plaintiffs, click on the
link below:
NAME REDACTED v. Channing
2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 04642, 742 N.Y.S.2d 632 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 6/6/02)
Where landlord sued to evict rent-stabilized tenant for refusing to sign a lease and for using the basement level of his multi-floor apartment as sleeping quarters in violation of the building's certificate of occupancy, no claim for retaliatory eviction will lie based on the theory that landlord was trying to make tenant sign a lease that gave him fewer rights than his 1974 lease when the Appellate Division found that landlord didn't even know there was a 1974 lease and tenant's use of the basement as sleeping quarters was against the law. Tenant couldn't claim the landlord was trying to evict him after tenant sought to enforce his legal rights, and tenant's retaliatory eviction claim was properly dismissed.
NAME REDACTED v. Channing
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 12/18/02)
Tenant's motion to compel landlord to answer it's many discovery requests (which
included both a request for documents as well as a request for responses to
multiple questions posed to plaintiff landlord at his deposition which
landlord's counsel objected to and directed him not to answer) largely denied -
including financial documents and information (such as operating statements,
profit and loss statements, subscription agreements, tax returns, K- 1s, and
partnership agreements), in connection with landlord's interests/investments in
assorted real estate partnerships and a carpet business that have nothing to do
with the subject lawsuit. Such financial requests were too far removed from the
facts in controversy to be not material or necessary. Neither were landlord's
income tax returns discoverable. Moreover, other of tenant's requests were
protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product
exclusion. Finally, tenant's request that landlord be prospectively directed to
answer all questions at his continued deposition, except as to privileged
matters, was denied.
Blackstone v. Hess
2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 50281(U) (App. Term 1st Dept. 6/3/02)
Respondent-tenant-appellant, an elderly woman who had occupied her rent-stabilized apartment for 35 years, was evicted by landlord on default of one month's rent while vacationing in Florida. The lower court refused to vacate the default and restore tenant to possession, saying the application was brought too late. Appellate Term overruled and found that considering the circumstances and the modest amount of payment default, the court should have granted tenant's motion for vacatur and for restoration to her apartment.
Link to Full Text of Decision
The above decision was affirmed on landlord's motion to appeal. Tenant was
restored to her apartment. Here is the Appellate Division's ruling:
Blackstone v. Hess
(App. Div. 1st Dept. 2/6/03)
Link to Full Text of Decision
The following is the most recent development in this case. The court found that
as the "prevailing party," the defendant-respondent-tenant is entitled to an
award of attorneys' fees.
Blackstone v. Hess
(Civ. Ct. Bronx Cty. 1/30/04)
Hess v. Blackstone
(Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. 3/3/04)
Court granted a 73 year old Plaintiff a special trial preference pursuant to CPLR Section 3403(a)(4) based upon her age.
57th Street Day Spa v. 135 East 57th
Street, LLC
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 3/26/02)
Defendant landlord had mailed to plaintiff tenant a notice to cure based on tenant's default in failing to seek landlord's permission to assign the premises. The court denied tenant's motion for a Yellowstone injunction because tenant did not seek relief until after the time to cure had expired.
Lyman, Inc. v. 132 W. 125 Co.
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 11/1/01)
Defendant commercial landlord successfully moved to dismiss plaintiff tenant's cause of action for offsets or overpayments based on statute of limitations grounds, because the landlord began billing tenant for alleged overcharges more than six years prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, using a computational methodology that remained constant over the years. Also, tenant's cause of action for breach of security deposit agreement to give interest was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. Moreover, tenant's motion to modify order granting Yellowstone injunction was conditioned on payment of rent currently invoiced to a lower number was denied.
285 West Broadway Associates Limited Associates v. Interactive Sports, Inc.
(Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, April 25, 2001)
Summary judgment dismissing affirmative defenses and counterclaims and awarding Petitioner/Landlord a possessory judgment on its claims for rent, additional rent and attorneys’ fees, granted, and Respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Petition is denied. Affirmative defenses and counterclaims dismissed include: lack of jurisdiction due to alleged failure to make a proper rent demand; allegation that Petition seeks stale rent; alleged failure of the Petition to state a cause of action; allegation that the Petition fails to comply with the requirements of RPAPL Section 741, which sets forth the required contents of a Petition in a summary proceeding, in that Petitioner had allegedly not supported the Petition’s allegation that Petitioner is the net lessee of the building; allegation that the amount of rent demanded in the Petition is not correct; laches, waiver and/or estoppeI; allegation that the leased premises “are not safe or fit to be used for the purposes for which they were intended to be used”; allegation that the Petition is defective because it was not signed by counsel; allegation of lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of Petitioner’s predicate notice; allegation that that Petitioner failed to serve the Respondent-Tenant with the preliminary notices required to be served under the subject lease agreement and therefore the real estate taxes and other additional rent demanded are not due and owing; allegation of lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of the Notice of Petition and Petition; allegation of partial constructive eviction; breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; allegation that the value of the premises was reduced by Petitioner's failure to make repairs and provide all services called for under the lease.
Broome Realty Associates v. Esposito
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 3/7/01)
Most of tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims were struck in this non-primary residence case, including: breach of warranty of habitability, harassment, abuse of process, improper service of the predicate notice of termination. Disclosure was granted to landlord, and tenant was ordered to pay rent during proceeding.
475 Park Ave. So. Co. v. Betelgeuse Productions, Inc.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 3/2/01)
Landlord granted summary judgment in this holdover based upon tenant's failure to replenish its security deposit after landlord drew down on the security for non-payment of rent.
Freeman Foursome v. Cabana Carioca
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1/30/01)
Plaintiff, owner of a four-story building in Manhattan, had net-leased the entire building to a corporation, and obtained judgment after trial for rent, additional rent, costs of cleanup and re-letting, payment of violations, expenses connected with obtaining amended certificate of occupancy, and expenses in connection with other obligations undertaken but not carried out by the net lessee. Court also held that when, prior to judgment, principals of corporate tenant repaid a loan to themselves as major shareholders, such transfer was presumptively fraudulent and designed with the intention of hindering plaintiff landlord as a creditor; therefore, plaintiff was allowed to collect against individual defendants as well. Decision affirmed on appeal (293 A.D.2d 964, 741 N.Y.S.2d 146 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 4/30/02)).
Simon & Son Upholstery, Inc. v. 601 West Associates
268 A.D.2d 359 (1st dept. 2000)
Landlord who withdrew elevator service from tenant after purchasing upscale building was directed to reinstate elevator service. Court ruled that prior landlord, who rented to a furniture company, agreed to tenant's utilization of a portion of the space as a photographic studio. Court held that landlord accepted payments from the photo studio, and that "[w]hile no explicit consent can be found it is clear from the course of dealings that landlord consented to the use of the premises as a studio."
Simon & Son Upholstery, Inc. v. 601 West Associates
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 10/15/01)
Following reversal of the lower court decision denying tenant an injunction
requiring landlord to provide elevator services, court then granted tenant
summary judgment requiring landlord to provide tenant after-hours elevator
service necessary for the conduct of its photographic studio business. Here is
that decision:
Simon & Son Upholstery, Inc. v. 601 West Associates
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 8/27/03)
The most recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court preserved the
plaintiff tenants' case for punitive damages and allowed plaintiffs to allege a
denial of signage. The case has been moved to jury selection for resolution of
the third and fourth causes of action for tortious interference. To read the
Court's memorandum decision, click on the link below:
European American Bank v. Three Park Ave. Building Co.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 10/3/00)
Defendant had leased premises to third party (not named in suit), which had obtained as security a letter of credit from plaintiff made payable to defendant. When third party defaulted under its lease, defendant drew down the full amount of letter of credit, and plaintiff then commenced action to recover a portion of payment. Court found that while third party may owe money to plaintiff, defendant is under no obligation to turn over any portion of payment to plaintiff, and drawing down of entire amount of letter of credit was valid. Defendant awarded costs and disbursements.
Wented Realty Corp. v. Hisako Oshima Watanabe
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 9/7/00)
Landlord won summary judgment and was granted a money judgment in the amount of three times the rent sued for because lease allowed for such damages. Hearing for attorney's fees was also granted. Tenant's argument that it renewed lease was unpersuasive because it did not exercise the renewal option in strict compliance with the lease terms.
622 Building Co. v. Cosi Sandwich Bar
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 8/21/00)
This case was a dispute about the propriety of the landlord's objection to a proposed sub-tenant, where tenant merged with another entity but failed to give landlord notice of such under lease. Court held that landlord was not subject to arbitration requirement under lease, because landlord shouldn't be forced to arbitrate with a successor to tenant who is present only because tenant breached the lease terms.
Duane Reade, Inc. v. Reade Broadway Associates
710 N.Y.S.2d 566, 7/10/00 N.Y.L.J. 22, (col.5), 28 H.C.R. 456A (App. Div. 1st Dept. 6/6/00)
Under terms of commercial lease, landlord was contractually relieved of liability for delay in delivering leased premises caused by a holdover tenant. Landlord expeditiously commenced a holdover proceeding and promptly entered a stipulation ensuring holdover's vacatur with only a five-month delay, which in all likelihood prevented additional delay arising from completion of holdover proceeding and recovery of possession of premises. The period of approximately five months for landlord to recover possession of commercial realty from holdover tenant was not an unreasonable amount of time while holdover proceeding occurred in Civil Court. (Lease provision requires landlord to take all reasonable steps to assure that tenant would get possession of premises as soon as possible after the expiration of holdover tenant's lease.)
Broome Realty Associates v. Eng
182 Misc.2d 917, 703 N.Y.S.2d 360 (App. Term 1st Dept. 11/4/99)
Court held that landlord had the right to maintain a surveillance camera situated in the hallway outside of tenant's door in non-primary residence case, and that with the exception of proceedings for the enforcement of housing standards and applications for certain provisional remedies, the New York City Civil Court may not grant injunctive relief.
Kantar Investment v. Giacchetto
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 7/29/99)
Sub-landlord in coop was granted summary judgment in residential holdover case where subtenant held over after expiration of sublease. Residential tenant's general affirmative defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction was struck because it was not based on any specific factual allegation. Landlord was permitted to amend petition to reflect that petitioner is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in New York. Individual apartment owners of an apartment/loft are not required to register a building as a multiple dwelling, nor plead the multiple dwelling status. A person who sublets a dwelling unit from a purchaser shall not be deemed a non-purchasing tenant.
This case then went to the Appellate Term, which affirmed the above decision.
Here is the Appellate Term's ruling:
Kantar Investment v. Giacchetto
(App. Term 1st Dept. 10/5/00)
Appellate Term upheld grant of summary judgment to sub-landlord in coop in residential holdover case where subtenant held over after expiration of sublease. Among other things, the court held that petitioner was not required to attempt personal service at tenant's place of business, located in the same building on a different floor, before resorting to conspicuous place service.
AD 1619 Co. v. VB Management, Inc.
The following is a series of seven decisions in which Itkowitz & Harwood represented AD 1619 Co., the commercial landlord of the historic Brill Building in midtown Manhattan. These decisions are extremely instructional in hardball litigation tactics in the real world. They show how a determined litigant (in this case the landlord) can prevail by persevering in a cause he believes is just, even after an initial bad break in a lower court. In this case, the lower court initially granted a 20% rent abatement, which was reduced on appeal to 1%, resulting in payment of all rent due and a substantial award of attorney's fees. While the outcome came after a number of appeals and remands, the result more than justified the client's commitment.
Link to Full Text of Decisions
23-76 33rd Street Realty Corp. v. Fatma Ebrahim Hassan
(Civ. Ct. Queens Cty. 12/15/98)
Tenant moved to vacate a stipulation of settlement on the basis that she did not understand English and no Arabic interpreter was provided by the court at the time the stipulation was entered into, and that she had no lawyer at that time. The court requisitioned and listened to tapes of the allocution of the stipulation and held that tenant had the ability to understand the terms of the stipulation. Moreover, a hearing was held on tenant's motion to vacate the stipulation, wherein the tenant answered questions clearly in English. Finally, the court noted that the tenant was settling a nuisance proceeding which appeared to be based on credible evidence, and she thereafter took advantage of the stipulation of settlement for four months. Therefore, the court held that the stipulation would stand.
ITW Mortgage Investments v. GMI N.Y.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2/24/98)
Petitioner landlord commenced non-payment proceeding against respondent tenant, who had not been paying rent to landlord and had sublet the premises to undertenant. Tenant claimed that it had not been paying rent because landlord had breached lease in changing premises without consent of tenant; landlord pointed out that sublease between tenant and undertenant contained no such obligation. Tenant also asserted that the lease had been terminated because landlord had "substantially and materially alter[ed] the premises"; landlord explained that only a door and a small partition had been changed. Tenant also claimed constructive eviction, which the court determined to be false, since tenant was accepting rent from undertenants and had not in fact abandoned the premises. All six of tenant's affirmative defenses were stricken by court. Court granted summary judgment in favor of landlord, determining that tenant was not paying rent due to landlord under the terms of the lease.
Eighty First Associates v. Morell
(App. Term 1st Dept. 11/97)
In this case of a long-term rent-stabilized tenancy where the tenant has deposited the entire $42,030.61 judgment against him with the clerk of the court, the Appellate Term determined that lower court had erred by not vacating warrant of eviction.
805 Third Avenue Co. v. Levco Realty Corp.
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 10/29/96
Defendant tenant had failed to pay rent to plaintiff landlord in violation of terms of lease, resulting in lease termination. Court granted landlord's motions for partial summary judgment of $446,500.02 and for severance for trial of landlord's claim for unpaid additional rent and liquidated damages.
25-35 Tennis Associates v. Humpherys
2/21/96 N.Y.L.J. 28, (col. 6) (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty.)
Court rejected pro se tenant's attempt to open a stipulation providing for the payment of arrears and imposed sanctions against her for dilatory tactics.
Kraft, Haiken & Bell v. Bell & Co.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 6/9/94)
Court held that service of process upon subtenant personally is not a precondition to using substituted service that may be utilized at the option of landlord.
G.S.H. Associates v. Expressions, Inc.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 6/1/94)
Court held that the reduction in elevator services from two to one functioning elevators due to renovation and repair of elevators did not constitute an actual or constructive eviction, particularly where the lease provided for renovation and repair to the elevators.
400 Madison Ave. v. Etno, Inc.
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 3/28/94)
Respondent tenant was allowed to introduce parole evidence in support of its claim for a five-month rent allowance where subject lease clause failed to express the true agreement of the parties. Landlord, a foreign partnership, could not obtain a judgment against tenant without first obtaining a certificate of authority to do business in the state. Court held that tenant was entitled to an abatement where the landlord failed to repair roof of building.
In re Arts des Provinces de France, Inc.
153 B.R. 144 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1993)
When a bar date notice was served upon a managing agent, but not upon landlord or its counsel, landlord was permitted to file a late notice of claim.
53rd Street Associates v. Las Americas
Communications, Inc.
21 H.C.R. 203A (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 11/8/93)
Following judgment of possession and money judgment for arrears, defendant tenant had vacated commercial premises for which he had signed a guaranty. Court awarded judgment to plaintiff landlord against tenant for amount of initial money judgment, subsequent unpaid base and additional rent, and cleaning expenses.
Three Park Avenue Co. v. Feuer Leather Corp.
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 7/17/92)
Court held that tenant defendant's claim that landlord breached lease obligation to provide adequate ventilation and heat was not sufficient to defeat partial summary judgment for landlord for rent owed.
Matter of Plaza Realty Investors
173 A.D.2d 290 (1st Dept. 1991)
Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of landlord's appeal of an Article 78 proceeding contesting the agency's finding that a tenant filed a rent overcharge case in a timely manner.
Corbo Co. v. Feiden Enterprises, Inc.
(App. Term 1st Dept.)
Court found that it could not relegate landlord to a plenary action for arrears that accrue subsequent to the commencement of a summary proceeding, but must allow petitioner to amend the proceeding.
Dabalsa v. Crino
143 Misc.2d 480, 541 N.Y.S.2d 144 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1989)
Tenant filed rent overcharge in a timely manner and in court, as opposed to before the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which was not a necessary party.
West Coast Company v. SGHC Food Corp.
19 H.C.R. 115A (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1989)
Court held that notice from landlord's agent was adequate where lease was executed by agent on behalf of landlord, and that notice from landlord referring to "your lease" was not equivocal or ambiguous as to the lease description where only one lease existed between the parties. Failure of tenant to contest lease escalation within 30 days as required by lease barred tenant from challenging escalation outside of required period.
West Coast Company v. International Hors D'Oeuvrery
(Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 6/21/88)
Court ruled that respondent tenant not entitled to discovery of causes of water damage in a commercial non-payment proceeding, lack of a certificate of occupancy was not a defense to a commercial non-payment proceeding, and alleged landlord negligence was not a defense to a non-payment because "a commercial tenant has an independent obligation to pay rent as long as the tenant is in possession."
Knopfler v. Soybel
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 5/31/88)
Court required landlord to consent to sublease when rent-stabilized tenant temporarily located to London for business reasons.
Eastwood Building Committee of Roosevelt Island v. Berman
118 Misc.2d 494, 461 N.Y.S.2d 184 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1983)
Court upheld challenge by tenants to rent increase promulgated by the State Division of Housing and Community renewal on the ground that the State agency had failed to comply with its published rules and regulations governing the issuance of rent increases for state-subsidized housing.
Link to Press on this Decision