You are here: / / LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE...

LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the lease in question was not an attempt to thwart rent control and was therefore valid and enforceable. The lease related to three apartments which were leased at different times to the defendant-tenant, who combined them into a single unit. Two of the apartments were rent-controlled and one was rent-stabilized and it was unclear at the time the lease was drawn what law applied:

… [T]his case is clearly unique because unlike the many cases where we invalidated leases seeking to circumvent the rent laws, here the parties truly did not know the rent-regulated status of the combined apartments. It appears that there were two rent-controlled apartments that were combined with a rent-stabilized apartment sometime in 1977. Fundamentally, in the foregoing cases there was no uncertainty about the rent-regulated status of the apartments and no question that the parties knowingly attempted to circumvent the rent laws. In contrast, the parties in this matter were unsure about the status of the combined apartment. This confusion was well founded and even supported by the fact that the parties received conflicting determinations concerning the legal status of this apartment from Rent Administrators … regarding the apartment’s status. Furthermore, the lease contemplated the possibility that the apartment could not be treated as intended by the parties. Indeed, while the lease provided for the combined apartments to move from rent control to rent stabilization, the parties explicitly recognized that they might be “prohibited or precluded” from enforcing their intended procedure. This is quite different from those leases which purposely sought to skirt the law and had no regard for the rent regulation scheme whatsoever. In other words, this agreement contemplated not that both parties would evade regulatory coverage but that they would seek approval of their agreement … . Thus, this case is distinguishable from those involving leases which knowingly and purposely sought to evade the rent laws. Here, there was no intent by the parties to the lease agreement to circumvent the rent laws. 204 Columbia Hgts., LLC v Manheim, 2017 NY Slip Op 00425, 1st Dept 1-19-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE)/RENT CONTROL (NYC) (LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE)/LEASES (LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE)

You might also like
THE DRIVER BEING VISIBLY NERVOUS, COUPLED WITH THE VEHICLE HAVING OUT-OF-STATE PLATES AND BEING IN A HIGH CRIME AREA, DID NOT PROVIDE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY; THEREFORE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASKING WHETHER THERE WERE ANY WEAPONS IN THE CAR, A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT STATE COLLEGE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS COLLEGE MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN PETITIONER-STUDENT’S EXPULSION; THE EXPULSION PENALTY WAS VACATED AND THE STUDENT WAS REINSTATED IN GOOD STANDING (FIRST DEPT). ​
APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES FROM THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
A NON-DEFECTIVE CELLAR DOOR CLOSED AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S HEAD; THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES; AND THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF THE COURTROOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, NOT CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC IN EMAILS, AND (2), THE COURTROOM CLOSURE WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC-TRIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 4 (FIRST DEPT).
Loud Argument With Another Teacher In Front of Students Did Not Justify an Unsatisfactory Rating and Discharge of Probationary Teacher

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR... EVEN THOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN HE CROSSED THE...