18809 research outputs found
Sort by
ONE ARDEN PARTNERS LP v. BUTLER
Full text linkIn 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
Full text linkHandwritten 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
Full text linkIdentity 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
Full text linkIn 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
Full text linkThe 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
Full text linkThe 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
Esplanade 94 LLC v. Aiyash
No full textIn this licensee holdover proceeding concerning a rent-stabilized single-room occupancy (SRO) unit, the landlord sought possession, claiming the tenant was a mere licensee or squatter. The tenant, appearing pro se, established that he had continuously resided in the unit since September 2019, openly, with the landlord\u27s employees\u27 knowledge. He also proved he requested a lease in November 2019 and paid rent to the landlord\u27s agent. The court found the tenant qualified as a permanent tenant under Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.6(j), which grants permanent tenancy status to SRO occupants who reside for at least six months or request a lease. The petition was dismissed, and the landlord was ordered to issue a rent-stabilized lease to the tenant
BOSTON ROAD HDFC, INC. v. Santiago
No full textIn this nonpayment proceeding concerning a Project Based Section 8 apartment, the tenant moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the predicate rent demand was defective for failing to provide a good faith approximation of rent due. The landlord\u27s rent demand included a significant lump-sum charge without detailing the specific months, amounts, or breakdown of purported arrears. The court found that the rent demand was indeed defective as it did not sufficiently identify when the arrears accrued, the specific monthly charges, or confirm if non-rent charges were included. Consequently, the court granted the tenant\u27s motion, dismissing the proceeding under CPLR 3211(a)(7) for lack of a proper cause of action
OBIANUJUG NWAKILE v. ADETUNJI D. BANKOLE
No full textHandwritten opinion. A landlord brought a lease expiration holdover proceeding against a tenant. The court granted the tenant\u27s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case because the landlord failed to comply with the requirements of the Good Cause Eviction Law (GECL). The landlord\u27s cross-motion to serve a Notice of Applicability was denied as moot. The court found that the landlord\u27s non-compliance with GECL was a fatal defect, requiring dismissal of the proceeding. This case illustrates the importance of a landlord\u27s strict adherence to GECL notice requirements in lease expiration holdover proceedings
HALJAMAR REALTY CORP. v. MIZRACHI
No full textIn this nonpayment case, the court awarded the tenants a substantial rent abatement of over $76, 000 for the landlord\u27s breach of the warranty of habitability. The tenants successfully proved the existence of numerous conditions, including leaks, mold, and defective surfaces, using HPD violations and trial testimony. While the landlord was granted a final money judgment for the remaining arrears, the court significantly reduced the amount owed. The decision underscores the importance of a fact-based defense in abatement cases to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard