18809 research outputs found
Sort by
17 Eldridge Street Corp. v. Saavedra
No full textThe landlord commenced a nonpayment proceeding. The tenant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the predicate rent demand was fatally defective because it lacked the required Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) notice under RPL § 231-c. The landlord conceded the omission but cross-moved to amend the petition. The court found the GCEL notice requirement mandatory for rent demands under RPAPL § 711(2). Adhering to the rule that predicate notices are unamendable, the court granted the tenant\u27s motion, dismissing the petition without prejudice, and denied the landlord\u27s cross-motion as moot. The tenant substantially won
Grenpoint Preservation L.P. v. Bennett
No full textHandwritten opinion. This licensee holdover proceeding in a Project Based Section 8 building concluded with a stipulated settlement. The trial judge so-ordered the facts and determined the tenant, the deceased tenant\u27s biological son, was eligible for succession. This was despite the tenant never being listed on the household composition, based on evidence of two years co-residency and a thwarted attempt by the landlord to add him. The court, relying on *Marine Terrace Associates v. Kesoglides*, found that an attempt by the landlord to add the successor, if rebuffed, along with familial relationship and co-residency, suffices for succession in the 2nd Department
An Electoral College Compromise Constitutional Amendment: Bridging Partisan Divides to Improve Presidential Elections
Full text linkAbolishing the Electoral College in favor of using a national popular vote to elect the president and vice president is unlikely to attract sufficient bipartisan support to reach the high thresholds for amending the U.S. Constitution. However, the Electoral College has flawed features that both Democrats and Republicans might support reforming because those defects can undermine either party’s candidates. This Essay highlights three such defects. First, contingent elections—a process by which Congress selects the president and vice president if no ticket wins a majority of electoral votes—are deeply unrepresentative of the American electorate while also being subject to unpredictable dysfunction and partisan manipulation. Second, presidential electors—the individuals who are expected to transmit the will of voters—can attempt to exceed their ministerial roles to either party’s detriment. Third, the constitutional provision that lets states determine how to appoint their electors is ambiguously drafted and makes it possible for states to bar voters from participating in presidential elections
Abortion Travel Restrictions Under the Dormant Commerce Clause After \u3ci\u3eNational Pork Producers Council v. Ross\u3c/i\u3e
Full text linkSince Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, twelve states have banned abortion entirely, and seven states have banned abortion earlier in pregnancy than the standard set in Roe v. Wade. As abortion access dwindles, patients increasingly cross state lines to seek reproductive healthcare. In response, antiabortion state officials and lawmakers have made efforts to restrict interstate travel for abortion care.
This Note examines abortion travel restrictions under the “Dormant” Commerce Clause doctrine, which limits state laws that burden interstate commerce. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed but narrowed the judge-made doctrine in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. This Note analyzes state regulations of interstate abortion travel under the newly clarified two-tier Dormant Commerce Clause test. It concludes that such laws violate the Dormant Commerce Clause by (1) impermissibly depriving out-of-state businesses of their competitive advantages and (2) imposing a clearly excessive burden on interstate commerce relative to the laws’ purported benefits
562 West 174th Equities LLC v. Mednik
Full text linkIn this holdover based on alleged lease expiration, the key issue was whether the unit was rent-stabilized. The landlord initially claimed deregulation based on high-rent vacancy but had previously filed contradictory claims asserting rent-stabilization in other proceedings, including a newer, concurrent case. The tenant argued rent-stabilization based on regulatory filings. The court found the multiple filings and reversals in position by the landlord created a confusing and prejudicial scenario. Because the newer case raised the same issue, the court dismissed the current proceeding without prejudice. Practice Note: Landlords should avoid simultaneously prosecuting parallel cases involving contradictory regulatory claims, as it may undermine their credibility and prejudice their position. In this holdover based on alleged lease expiration, the key issue was whether the unit was rent-stabilized. The landlord initially claimed deregulation based on high-rent vacancy but had previously filed contradictory claims asserting rent-stabilization in other proceedings, including a newer, concurrent case. The tenant argued rent-stabilization based on regulatory filings. The court found the multiple filings and reversals in position by the landlord created a confusing and prejudicial scenario. Because the newer case raised the same issue, the court dismissed the current proceeding without prejudice. Practice Note: Landlords should avoid simultaneously prosecuting parallel cases involving contradictory regulatory claims, as it may undermine their credibility and prejudice their position
Brazilia Leasing L.P. v. Watts
Full text linkThe court dismissed a licensee holdover petition after a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the petitioner had knowledge that the respondent lacked mailbox access. The respondent testified that she had informed the petitioner\u27s personnel of her lack of mailbox access in December 2023, and this testimony was unchallenged. The court found the respondent\u27s testimony credible, and since the petitioner had knowledge of the lack of mailbox access at the time of service, the court ruled the service was improper. The petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Practice Note: Ensure service complies with jurisdictional requirements, especially when a tenant has no access to essential services like mail
New York City Housing Authority managed by Seth Low Houses v. Ingram
Full text linkFollowing a default eviction in a nonpayment case, the tenant and her three children were rendered homeless for over a month. The court found restoration warranted despite nonpayment due to the unlawful eviction of unserved occupants, including a child who had just turned 18. The landlord’s blanket policy of naming only the head of household in nonpayment proceedings violated RPAPL §§749(1)-(2). The court was persuaded by the tenant\u27s policy argument highlighting NYC’s homeless student crisis and ordered restoration forthwith under RPAPL §749(3), prior to arrears being paid, citing equitable grounds and pending emergency rental assistance. Practice Note: Courts may exercise discretion to restore possession before arrears are paid when landlords unlawfully evict non-named occupants and serious hardship is shown
White Living Trust v. Campbell
Full text linkHandwritten opinion. In this holdover proceeding without stated grounds, the landlord moved to file a late affidavit of service 125 days after the initial appearance. The tenant opposed, invoking Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman, arguing the delay was fatal. The landlord cited Siedlecki v. Doscher, claiming lack of prejudice, but failed to substantiate the claim. The court found the landlord\u27s delay unjustified and prejudicial in light of procedural requirements, especially given the tenant\u27s timely and persuasive opposition. The motion was denied, and the case dismissed. Practice Note: Courts strictly enforce timely service compliance; late affidavits without detailed justification and proof of lack of prejudice will likely result in dismissal
Matter of 901 Bklyn Realty, LLC v. Manigat
Full text linkIn a non-primary residence holdover proceeding, the Appellate Division affirmed the Appellate Term\u27s decision, disqualifying the tenant\u27s stepdaughter from succeeding to her stepfather\u27s rent-stabilized tenancy. The court held that succession rights must be asserted in a timely fashion, typically when a lease renewal offer is made after the tenant of record permanently vacates. The tenant\u27s stepdaughter failed to claim succession to her stepfather\u27s tenancy immediately after his death and did not seek succession to the subsequent tenancy of her step-sister. The court emphasized that the tenant for succession purposes usually refers to the most recent tenant of record. Recent amendments to Public Housing Law concerning permanently vacated did not alter this outcome. The landlord\u27s motion for summary judgment was granted, and final judgment was awarded to the landlord
Emerald Lofts LLC. v. Echevarria
Full text linkIn a no-grounds holdover, the landlord sought to evict a tenant, claiming the unit was exempt from the Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) due to the tenant\u27s Section 8 voucher. The court granted the landlord\u27s motion to amend their pleadings to comply with RPAPL § 741(5-a) requirements. However, the court then granted the tenant\u27s motion to dismiss, ruling that a portable Section 8 voucher does not automatically exempt a unit from GCEL under RPL § 214(5), as it doesn\u27t regulate rent or eviction terms like other housing programs