18809 research outputs found
Sort by
1616 President St. Assoc. LLC v. Edwards
Full text linkA landlord sought to reargue a prior order granting a tenant a 100% rent abatement for rent-impairing violations under MDL § 302-a, arguing the abatement period should not extend beyond the rent sought in the unamended petition. The court denied the motion, distinguishing a prior Appellate Term decision (1616 President Street Associates, LLC v. Ann Marie Ackie, 84 Misc 3d 128(A) [App Term, 2d Dept])concerning rent deposit requirements from the court\u27s authority to grant a full abatement on the merits. The court affirmed that MDL § 302-a permits a 100% abatement for the entire period a rent-impairing violation remains uncorrected after six months\u27 notice, irrespective of the petition\u27s scope
MAZAL GRAFTON BH LLC v. POWER
No full textIn a holdover proceeding, the court granted the tenant\u27s motion for reargument and dismissed the landlord\u27s petition. The tenant argued that a prior, identical holdover case had been dismissed on the merits after trial, and under CPLR 5013, a post-evidence dismissal is presumed to be with prejudice, thereby having a preclusive effect (res judicata). Despite the judge\u27s original intent, the tenant successfully argued that the text of the prior decision, and not the judge\u27s subjective meaning, controls. The motion to dismiss the new petition was granted in its entirety
BEDEAU REALTY LLC v. BURTON
No full textIn a holdover based on nuisance, the court dismissed the landlord\u27s petition because the lease lacked a conditional limitation, which is a statutory prerequisite for a summary eviction proceeding under RPAPL Article 7. The court reasoned that the Rent Stabilization Code restricts, but does not create, grounds for summary eviction. The court also noted that the landlord failed to comply with a contractual lease provision requiring a 30-day notice of default, thereby providing a second basis for dismissal
Zeydelis v. Yershov
No full textA holdover petition was dismissed after the court granted the tenant\u27s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the notice of petition was defective because it did not comply with the form mandated by 22 NYCRR 208.42(b) and Administrative Order 163/19. Citing precedent from other courts, the judge held that even minor technical defects can be grounds for dismissal. The court declined to rule on the tenant\u27s separate argument regarding the landlord\u27s acceptance of rent, as the defective notice of petition was sufficient grounds for dismissal
BSC Owner LLC v. Holley
No full textThe court granted the tenant\u27s motion to dismiss a nonpayment case because the landlord could not produce a valid lease for the period in which the alleged arrears accrued. The landlord\u27s argument that a HUD Model Lease provided for a perpetual lease was rejected by the court, which found that the rental amount changing from year to year made the lease indefinite on a material term. Consequently, with no lease in effect for the relevant time, the landlord could not maintain the nonpayment proceeding
Garcia v Hardy
No full textIn a no-grounds holdover, the tenant moved to dismiss for improper service of the petition and notice of petition. The court found that although the tenant\u27s affidavit raised an issue regarding a lack of first-class mailing that could have warranted a hearing, she waived her personal jurisdiction defense by asserting an unrelated counterclaim for harassment. The court reasoned that since a harassment claim is not a defense to either a possessory or monetary judgment, it is unrelated to the landlord\u27s claims. However, the court did order a hearing on the separate issue of whether the predicate notice of termination was properly served, as the tenant\u27s specific sworn denials rebutted the process server\u27s affidavit
Lana, LLC v. Coffie
No full textIn this case, the landlord sued to recover unpaid rent and use and occupancy after a tenant\u27s eviction was delayed for over two years due to COVID-19 moratoria. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court, holding that the landlord\u27s claim for arrears that accrued after the final judgment of possession was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court reasoned that the unique circumstances of the pandemic-related delay meant the later-accrued costs were not part of the same transaction as the initial holdover proceeding. It also held that the landlord\u27s claims for damages from the tenant\u27s failure to provide access for repairs and for improper subletting were not barred by res judicata because the Civil Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear them in the original proceeding
Matter of LL 410 E. 78th St. LLC v. Division of Hous. & Community Renewal
No full textThe Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a landlord\u27s Article 78 petition seeking to annul DHCR\u27s decision to deny its application to amend rent registrations. The landlord claimed the registrations were mistakenly filed, as the unit was permanently exempt due to high-rent vacancy. However, DHCR denied the application, interpreting RSC § 2528.3(c) to permit only ministerial, not substantive, amendments. The court found this interpretation to be rational, as it protects tenants from fraud, preserves agency resources, and reserves complex disputes over regulatory status for adversarial proceedings rather than preemptive amendment applications. The court held that DHCR\u27s action was not arbitrary or capricious
489 MM Realty LLC v. Zelaya
No full textThe court dismissed the landlord\u27s holdover petition because the predicate notice was improperly served. The affidavit of service stated it was personally served on Albert Zelaya, but the notice was actually delivered to Albert Zelaya Jr. Citing the **strict compliance** standard for personal service, the court found the name discrepancy was a fatal defect. The landlord\u27s cross-motion to amend the affidavit was denied because it was not supported by an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge, nor did the landlord demonstrate that the respondent had attempted to evade service
8 E. 102nd St. LLC v. Chapman
No full textIn a nonpayment case, the court denied the tenant\u27s motion to compel discovery, finding it moot because the landlord had produced the requested water tests in its opposition papers. The court also denied the tenant\u27s separate request for further discovery, citing a prior stipulation between the parties. That stipulation mandated that the tenant withdraw her discovery motion if the landlord made a specific representation about the lack of other water quality complaints, which the landlord did. The court held that the parties are bound by the plain language of their stipulation