Housing Court Decisions August 97
edited by Colleen F. McGuire, Esq.
Return to current month
Return to main index
Return to 1997 index
New York Law Journal, decisions for the week of August 25-29, 1997 (1 case)
- Case Caption:
- Capital Holding Co. v. Rena Stavrolakes
- Issues/Legal Principles:
- Roommate law which permits a tenant to have one unrelated roommate, cannot be used
against tenant as a basis for eviction if tenant has more than one unrelated roommate.
- Keywords:
- roommates
- Court:
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Judge:
- lower court: Hon. Shirley Kornreich
- Date:
- August 25, 1997
- Citation:
- NYLJ, page 22, col 1
- Referred Statutes:
- RPL 235-f
- Summary:
- Rent-controlled tenant occupied an apartment for 13 years. There is no written lease.
The tenant has two roommates who are not related to her. Landlord served tenant with a ten-day notice to cure (followed by a notice of termination, notice of petition and petition), alleging
a breach of a substantial obligation of a statutory tenancy, that is, "having more than one
occupant of her apartment who was not a family member or co-tenant in violation of RPL
Section 235-f(3)." The tenant moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground
that her roommates were not subject to rent control, as landlord alleged in the petition.
Landlord cross-moved for summary judgment, on the grounds that the tenant did not dispute the
fact that she had two roommates living with her in violation of the roommate law. The trial
court dismissed the petition, holding that the roommate law is a tenant protection statute and was
not intended to be used by landlords to evict tenants. The Appellate Term reversed, 2-1, and
granted landlord's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed essentially
for the same reasons stated by the trial court. The Appellate Division noted that there is nothing
in the roommate law that would prevent a landlord from including occupancy limitation
provisions in leases and enforcing such provisions "as long as they do not violate the minimum
protections afforded tenants and occupants under RPL Section 235-f." However, if there's no
lease provision, or if the lease permits more than one roommate, the purpose of the roommate
law would be "perverted" if landlords were permitted to use the law against tenants. The
language of the roommate law is "permissive" rather than "restrictive." It says that the lease
shall be construed to permit occupancy of one additional occupant. Subdivision 9 of the roommate
law lists remedies, and does not include a cause of action for landlords. The remedies pertain
only to statutory violations by landlords. The Roommate Law further provides that nothing in
the law should be "construed to reduce or impair any right or remedy otherwise available to any
person residing in any housing accommodation on the effective date of this section which
accrued prior to such date." Based on a reading of the roommate law as a whole, the Appellate
Division concluded that it was intended to protect tenants, not landlords. Holdover proceedings
based upon violations of the roommate law are not permitted.
New York Law Journal, decisions for the week of August 18-22, 1997 (2 case)
- Case Caption:
- Ruiz v. Chwatt Associates
- Issues/Legal Principles:
- Tenant fails to prove residency in commercial unit which was mistakenly registered as
rent stabilized
- Keywords:
- leases; stabilization
- Court:
- Supreme Court, New York County
- Judge:
- Hon. Carol Arber
- Date:
- August 20, 1997
- Citation:
- NYLJ, page 21, col 4
- Referred Statutes:
- RSC 2520.11
- Summary:
- Tenant commenced an action seeking treble damages based upon rent overcharge,
attorney's fees and compensatory damages. Tenant claimed the unit was subject to rent
stabilization; owner claimed that the unit was leased to tenant solely as an office for the practice
of medicine. The tenant claimed that the apartment was his only residence and that he moved
in three months after signing the lease. The unit does not have a kitchen and the tenant claimed
that he eats all of his meals out. On his tax returns, the tenant deducted 80% of the rent as a
business expense. The lease was a form residential apartment lease, however, it included a
typewritten phrase which provided that the tenant's use would be solely for the practice of
medicine. The court held that when there is a conflict between two clauses in a contract, "the
handwritten or typewritten clauses prevail over the preprinted language of a form document."
The court dismissed the tenant's claim for relief. The court reached this conclusion
notwithstanding the fact that the unit had been mistakenly registered as rent stabilized for a
number of years.
- Case Caption:
- Djuko Realty, Inc. v. Roman
- Issues/Legal Principles:
- Keywords:
- Court:
- New York City Civil Court, Housing Part 18-G, Kings County
- Judge:
- Hon. Finkelstein
- Date:
- August 20, 1997
- Citation:
- NYLJ, page 23, col 5
- Referred Statutes:
- RRRA of 1997; RSC section 26-517
- Summary:
-
The tenant herein moved for partial summary judgment
based upon the landlord's failure to pay an annual $10.00 fee required by
Rent Stabilization Law ("RSL") section 26-517.1(a). The landlord
asserts that it was never billed for that particular fee in 1984, and
that it has paid all applicable fees which it has been billed for. The
landlord also alleges that it is not required to maintain records for
more than four years pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code.
The landlord argued in the alternative that factual issues exist,
precluding a finding of summary judgement, the tenant failed to make an
evidentiary showing that the tenant is entitled to the relief sought and
precedential case law precludes the granting of the tenant's motion.
After making the opposition argument, the landlord sent a letter to the
Court stating that the enactment of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of
1997 (RRRA) mandates the denial of the tenant's motion. The Court noted
that landlord is correct in stating the RRRA precludes a sanction
against a landlord for failing to pay the $10.00 fee. The Court
noted however, that it is not clear whether the law is applicable
retroactively (i.e., back to a landlord's failure to pay the fee before
the law was enacted). The Judge scheduled oral argument on the
issue of retroactivity alone, and stated that if the parties cannot
settle the case on the return date, it is likely that the tenant's motion
will be denied and a trial held.
- submitted by: Cary Kletter, Esq.
New York Law Journal, decisions for the week of August 11-15, 1997 (2 cases)
- Case Caption:
- Virginia City LLC v. Dickinson
- Issues/Legal Principles:
- Defective predicate notices cannot be amended, and mandate dismissal.
- Keywords:
- Termination Notice; Nonprimary Residence; Net Lessee
- Court:
- New York City Civil Court, Part 18, New York County
- Judge:
- Hon. Ling-Cohen
- Date:
- August 13, 1997
- Citation:
- NYLJ, page 22, col 4
- Referred Statutes:
- none
- Summary:
- In this "nonprimary residence" holdover, the tenant moved for dismissal
based upon an allegedly defective termination notice along with attorneys
fees and the landlord cross-moved for discovery and use and occupancy.
The tenant argued that the termination notice was facially defective because
it is from an entity (Virginia City LLC) which is neither the owner nor the
landlord. The deed and the lease were in another party's name. The petitioner
argued that the termination notice came from a "new" landlord and that the
tenant was aware of the change in landlord via a previously sent notice.
The court noted that precedent dictates that the tenant be able to act "with
safety" upon notices received. The court went on to say that predicate notices must,
therefore, provide the recipient with reasonable notice of the authority of
the signor. This is because the tenant must act on the notice at the
time it is given. The court dismissed the petition because of the fact that
the notice alleged it was from the owner and landlord, yet the petitioner was not listed
on the deed, and was not the landlord in the lease. The court noted that a
net lessee (petitioner is a net lessee) may sue as a "landlord" if there
is a valid assignment of lease and a valid assignment of rents.
Petitioner did not submit documentation showing that the "old" landlord had
executed an assigment of rents or an assignment of leases. The court also
noted that the termination notice was not written in plain language. The
court further noted that a member of a LLC may not be imbued with sufficient
authority to termintate a tenancy on behalf of the LLC, and thus detail regarding an
LLC member's authority must be set-forth in a termination notice signed by a "member." A
defective predicate notice is not an amendable defect, thus dismissal was mandated.
Respondent's motion for attorneys fees was denied because the petitioner was not a party
to the lease, thus attorneys fees could not be awarded to respondent.
- submitted by: Cary Kletter, Esq.
- Case Caption:
- 1050 Tenants Corp v. Lapidus
- Issues/Legal Principles:
- Issue Preclusion
- Keywords:
- Nonpayment; Cooperative
- Court:
- New York City Civil Court, New York County
- Judge:
- Hon. Stallman
- Date:
- August 13, 1997
- Citation:
- NYLJ, p. 23, col. 1
- Referred Statutes:
- none
- Summary:
- A cooperative corporation moved for partial summary judgement on its
prima facie case. After trial of a prior nonpayment proceeding between
the parties, the petitioner had been given a $43,834.24 judgment as well
as a possessory judgement. Although this is a new proceeding, petitioner
argued that issue preclusion barred respondent from raising issues that
had been resolved at trial in the previous litigation between the parties.
The Court stated that although claim preclusion did not apply, issue
preclusion did, and certain portions of petitioner's prima facie case
were accepted on the summary judgment motion based upon the documentary
evidence. The Court noted that the granting of this partial summary
judgment motion would result in the conservation of judicial resources,
the avoidance of delay and keeping legal fees in check. The Court also
noted that this type of application was typically addressed in an
application in limine before the trial judge.
- submitted by: Cary Kletter, Esq.
New York Law Journal, decisions for the week of August 4 to 8, 1997 (no cases reported)
|
|