18809 research outputs found
Sort by
Matter of 901 Bklyn Realty, LLC v. Manigat
Get PDFIn 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
Get PDFIn 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
ONE ARDEN PARTNERS LP v. BUTLER
Get PDFIn a nonpayment case, the court awarded the tenant a significant rent abatement (63%) due to severe apartment conditions. The landlord established its prima facie case for arrears. However, the tenant successfully demonstrated a breach of the warranty of habitability, proving extensive rat infestation (15-60% abatement), lead paint and leak issues (15% abatement), and a defective apartment door (7% abatement). The court calculated a total abatement of 21,575.02
IRASON LLC v. RIVADENEIRA
Get PDFHandwritten opinion. In this non-payment proceeding, the court found the landlord\u27s rent demand to be fatally defective. The defect stemmed from the demand requesting an amount $40 over the actual lease and registered rent. This overstatement rendered the demand invalid, leading to the court\u27s decision in favor of the tenant
The Right to (Digital) Identity
Get PDFIdentity verification is a prerequisite for full participation in modern society. Access to financial services, employment, housing, healthcare, education, and civic engagement all hinge on an individual’s ability to prove their identity. Millions of Americans—particularly marginalized groups—struggle with the rigid, bureaucratic, and often discriminatory processes of traditional identity verification systems. Without legally recognized identification, individuals are effectively excluded from economic and civic life. This Note argues that the ability to prove one’s identity is a protected interest. It proposes adoption of a federal Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) as a legal and technological mechanism to guarantee all Americans have access to a legally recognizable identity.
Unlike traditional identity verification systems, which rely on centralized databases controlled by governments or corporations, the SSI blockchain-based framework distributes and encrypts data so that sensitive personal information is virtually immune to large-scale cyber attacks and inadvertent disclosures.
In its comprehensive analysis, this Note demonstrates that the need for secure, inclusive access to a legally recognizable identity is not only necessary to combat systemic inequity, but also to safe-guard the exercise of fundamental rights
ANGELA ASANTE AND ANITA ASANTE AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN ASANTE v. WESTFIELD
Get PDFIn a holdover proceeding, the tenant moved to dismiss for lack of standing, asserting the landlord, as administrators, transferred property title to themselves individually prior to commencement. The court found that a proceeding initiated by an improper party is a nullity and cannot be cured by amendment or substitution, as standing must exist at the time of commencement. Since the estate did not own the premises, the proceeding was dismissed without prejudice, denying the landlord\u27s motions to amend and substitute as moot
37-07 147th Realty LLC v. Tibaguy
Get PDFThe court granted reargument, allowing the tenant discovery on the legal regulated rent and defectiveness of the rent demand. However, it adhered to striking the pre-HSTPA rent overcharge counterclaim as time-barred. The court held that the 2023 DHCR amendment to RSC § 2526.7(a)(1), which sets an earliest base-date of June 14, 2015, cannot circumvent the appellate courts\u27 interpretation of *Regina Metro. Co.*, which limits review of pre-HSTPA overcharge claims to a four-year look-back period absent a showing of common law regulatory fraud, which was not demonstrated here
57 Elmhurst LLC v. Terada
Get PDFThe court dismissed the landlord\u27s holdover petition alleging illegal sublet, unauthorized alterations (partition), and failure to install carpeting. The illegal sublet claim was dismissed for lack of proof of vacation or financial arrangement. The alteration and carpeting claims were dismissed due to waiver, as prior and current landlords implicitly consented by failing to object despite clear visibility and opportunities over a long tenancy. The tenant\u27s reasonable accommodation defense for carpeting was not established
The Law of Disqualification and Problems with the Supreme Court Code of Conduct
Get PDFIn this Article, we analyze the federal disqualification statute applicable to federal judges, magistrates, and Justices of the Supreme Court as compared to the disqualification provisions of the United States Supreme Court Code of Conduct and detail the ways in which the standards contained within the Code are contrary to law and history. To provide proper context, we examine the history, case law, and statutory framework that have created the current standards of judicial disqualification for all Article III judges and Justices. We demonstrate that the Court is bound to apply disqualification procedures in accordance with the United States Constitution, common law, and existing statutes. Our analysis also shows that the Court, in its Code of Conduct, has incorrectly claimed that the common law concepts of the “duty to sit” and the “rule of necessity” act as exceptions to statutorily imposed disqualification duties when in fact neither concept factors into the analysis of whether a Justice must disqualify themselves from considering a case. Finally, we propose legislative changes to remove any possible ambiguity regarding the requirements of the law of disqualification
